Damascus Orthodox faith 109
109 The Deity is simple and uncompound. But that which is composed of many and different elements is compound. If, then, we should speak of the qualities of being uncreate and without beginning and incorporeal and immortal and everlasting and good and creative and so forth as essential differences in the case of God, that which is composed of so many qualities will not be simple but must be compound. But this is impious in the extreme. Each then of the affirmations about God should be thought of as signifying not what He is in essence, but either something that it is impossible to make plain, or some relation to some of those things which are contrasts or some of those things that follow the nature, or an energy174 .
It appears then175 that the most proper of all the names given to God is “He that is,” as He Himself said in answer to Moses on the mountain, Say to the sons of Israel, He that is hath sent Me176 . For He keeps all being in His own embrace177 , like a sea of essence infinite and unseen. Or as the holy Dionysius says, “He that is good178 .” For one cannot say of God that He has being in the first place and goodness in the second.
The second name of God is oJ Qeov", derived from Qevein179 , to run, because He courses through all things, or from ai[qein, to burn: For God is a fire consuming all evils180 : or from Qea`sqai, because He is all-seeing181 : for nothing can escape Him, and over all He keepeth watch. For He saw all things before they were, holding them timelessly in His thoughts; and each one conformably to His voluntary anti timeless thought182 , which constitutes predetermination and image and pattern, comes into existence at the predetermined time183 .
The first name then conveys the notion of His existence and of the nature of His existence: while the second contains the idea of energy. Further, the terms ‘without beginning,’ ‘incorruptible,’ ‘unbegotten,’ as also ‘uncreate,’ ‘incorporeal,’ ‘unseen,’ and so forth, explain what He is not: that is to say, they tell us that His being had no beginning, that He is not corruptible, nor created, nor corporeaI, nor visible184 . Again, goodness and justice and piety and such like names belong to the nature185 , but do not explain His actual essence. Finally, Lord and King and names of that class indicate a relationship with their contrasts: for the name Lord has reference to those over whom the lord rules, and the name King to those under kingly authority, and the name Creator to the creatures, and the name Shepherd to the sheep he tends.
110 Therefore all these names must be understood as common to deity as a whole, and as containing the notions of sameness and simplicity and indivisibility and union: while the names Father, Son and Spirit, and cause, less and caused, and unbegotten and begotten, and procession contain the idea of separation: for these terms do not explain His essence, but the mutual relationship186 and manner of existence187 .
When, then, we have perceived these things and are conducted from these to the divine essence, we do not apprehend the essence itself but only the attributes of the essence: just as we have not apprehended the essence of the soul even when we have learnt that it is incorporeal and without magnitude and form: nor again, the essence of the body when we know that it is white or black, but only the attributes of the essence. Further, the true doctrine188 teacheth that the Deity is simple and has one simple energy, good and energising in all things, just as the sun’s ray, which warms all things and energises in each in harmony with its natural aptitude and receptive power, having obtained this form of energy from God, its Maker.
But quite distinct is all that pertains to the divine and benignant incarnation of the divine Word. For in that neither the Father nor the Spirit have any part at all, unless so far as regards approval and the working of inexplicable miracles which the God-Word, having become man189 like us, worked, as unchangeable God and son of God190 .
111 Since we find many terms used symbolically in the Scriptures concerning God which are more applicable to that which has body, we should recognise that it is quite impossible for us men clothed about with this dense covering of flesh to understand or speak of the divine and lofty and immaterial energies of the Godhead, except by the use of images and types and symbols derived from our own life191 . So then all the statements concerning God, that imply body, are symbols, but have a higher meaning: for the Deity is simple and formless. Hence by God’s eyes and eyelids and sight we are to understand His power of overseeing all things and His knowledge, that nothing can escape: for in the case of us this sense makes our knowledge more complete and more full of certainty. By God’s ears and hearing is meant His readiness to be propitiated and to receive our petitions: for it is this sense that renders us also kind to suppliants, inclining our ear to them more graciously. God’s mouth and speech are His means of indicating His will; for it is by the mouth and speech that we make clear the thoughts that are in the heart: God’s food and drink are our concurrence to His will, for we, too, satisfy the necessities of our natural appetite through the sense of taste. And God’s sense of smell is His appreciation of our thoughts of and good will towards Him, for it is through this sense that we appreciate sweet fragrance. And God’s countenance is the demonstration and manifestation of Himself through His works, for our manifestation is through the countenance. And God’s hands mean the effectual nature of His energy, for it is with our own hands that we accomplish our most useful and valuable work. And His right hand is His aid in prosperity, for it is the right hand that we also use when making anything of beautiful shape or of great value, or where much strength is required. His handling is His power of accurate discrimination and exaction, even in the minutest and most secret details, for those whom we have handled cannot conceal from us aught within themselves. His feet and walk are His advent and presence, either for the purpose of bringing succour to the needy, or vengeance against enemies, or to perform any other action, for it is by using our feet that we come to arrive at any place. His oath is the unchangeableness of His counsel, for it is by oath that we confirm our compacts with one another. His anger and fury are His hatred of and aversion to all wickedness, for we, too, hate that which is contrary to our mind and become enraged thereat192 . His forgetfulness and sleep and slumbering are His delay in taking vengeance on His enemies and the postponement of the accustomed help to His own. And to put it shortly, all the statements made about God that imply body have some hidden meaning and teach us what is above us by means of something familiar to ourselves, with the exception of any statement concerning the bodily sojourn of the God-Word. For He for our safety took upon Himself the whole nature of man193 , the thinking spirit, the body, and all the properties of human nature, even the natural and blameless passions.
112 The following, then, are the mysteries which we have learned from the holy oracles, as the divine Dionysius the Areopagite said194 : that God is the cause and beginning of all: the essence of all that have essence: the life of the living: the reason of all rational beings: the intellect of all intelligent beings: the recalling and restoring of those who fall away from Him: the renovation and transformation of those that corrupt that which is natural: the holy foundation of those who are tossed in unholiness: the steadfastness of those who have stood firm: the way of those whose course is directed to Him and the hand stretched forth to guide them upwards. And I shall add He is also the Father of all His creatures (for God, Who brought us into being out of nothing, is in a stricter sense our Father than are our parents who have derived both being and begetting from Him195 ): the shepherd of those who follow and are tended by Him: the radiance of those who are enlightened: the initiation of the initiated: the deification of the deified: the peace of those at discord: the simplicity of those who love simplicity: the unity of those who worship unity: of all beginning the beginning, super-essential be cause above all beginning196 : and the good revelation of what is hidden, that is, of the knowledge of Him so far as that is lawful for and attainable by each.
Further and more accurately concerning divine names197 .
The Deity being incomprehensible is also assuredly nameless. Therefore since we know not His essence, let us not seek for a name for His essence. For names are explanations of actual things198 . But God, Who is good and brought us out of nothing into being that we might share in His goodness, and Who gave us the faculty of knowledge, not only did not impart to us His essence, but did not even grant us the knowledge of His essence. For it is impossible for nature to understand fully the supernatural199 . Moreover, if knowledge is of things that are200 , how can there be knowledge of the super-essential? Through His unspeakable goodness, then, it pleased Him to be called by names that we could understand, that we might not be altogether cut off from the knowlege of Him but should have some notion of Him, however vague. Inasmuch, then, as He is incomprehensible, He is also unnameable. But inasmuch as He is the cause of all and contains in Himself the reasons and causes of all that is, He receives names drawn from all that is, even from opposites: for example, He is called light and darkness, water and fire: in order that we may know that these are not of His essence but that He is super-essential and unnameable: but inasmuch as He is the cause of all, He receives names from all His effects.
Wherefore, of the divine names, some have a negative signification, and indicate that He is super-essential201 : such are “non-essential202 ,” “timeless,” “without beginning,” “invisible”: not that God is inferior to anything or lacking in anything (for all things are His and have become from Him and through Him and endure in Him203 ), but that He is pre-eminently separated from all that is. For He is not one of the things that are, but over all things. Some again have an affirmative signification, as indicating that He is the cause of all things. For as the cause of all that is and of all essence, He is called both Ens and Essence. And as the cause of all reason and wisdom, of the rational and the wise, He is called both reason and rational, and wisdom and wise. Similarly He is spoken of as Intellect and Intellectual, Life and Living, Power and Powerful, and so on with all the rest. Or rather those names are most appropriate to Him which are derived from what is most precious and most akin to Himself. That which is immaterial is more precious and more akin to Himself than that which is material, and the pure than the impure, and the holy than the unholy: for they have greater part in Him. So then, sun and light will be more apt names for Him than darkness, and day than night, and life than death, and fire and spirit and water, as having life, than earth, and above all, goodness than wickedness: which is just to say, being more than not being. For goodness is existence and the cause of existence, but wickedness is the negation of goodness, that is, of existence. These, then, are the affirmations and the negations, but the sweetest names are a combination of both: for example, the super-essential essence, the Godhead that is more than God, the beginning that is above beginning and such like. Further there are some affirmations about God which have in a pre-eminent degree the force of denial: for example, darkness: for this does not imply that God is darkness but that He is not light, but above light.
God then is called Mind and Reason and Spirit and Wisdom and Power, as the cause of these, and as immaterial, and maker of all, and omnipotent204 . And these names are common to the whole Godhead, whether affirmative or negative. And they are also used of each of the subsistences of the Holy Trinity in the very same and identical way and with their full significance205 . For when I think of one of the subsistences, I recognise it to be perfect God and perfect essence: but when I combine and reckon the three together, I know one perfect God. For the Godhead is not compound but in three perfect subsistences, one perfect indivisible and uncompound God. And when I think of the relation of the three subsistences to each other, I perceive that the Father is super-essential Sun, source of goodness, fathomless sea of essence, reason, wisdom, power, light, divinity: the generating and productive source of good hidden in it. He Himself then is mind, the depth of reason, begetter of the Word, and through the Word the Producer206 of the revealing Spirit. And to put it shortly, the Father has no reason207 , wisdom, power, will208 , save the Son Who is the only power of the Father the immediate209 cause of the creation of the universe: as perfect subsistence begotten of perfect subsistence in a manner known to Himself, Who is and is named the Son. And the Holy Spirit is the power of the Father revealing the hidden mysteries of His Divinity, proceeding from the Father through the Son in a manner known to Himself, but different from that of generation. Wherefore the Holy Spirit is the perfecter of the creation of the universe. All the terms, then, that are appropriate to the Father, as cause, source, begetter, are to be ascribed to the Father alone: while those that are appropriate to the caused, begotten Son, Word, immediate power, will, wisdom, are to be ascribed to the Son: and those that are appropriate to the caused, processional, manifesting, perfecting power, are to be ascribed to the Holy Spirit. The Father is the source and cause of the Son and the Holy Spirit: Father of the Son alone and producer of the Holy Spirit. The Son is Son, Word, Wisdom, Power, Image, Effulgence, Impress of the Father and derived from the Father. But the Holy Spirit is not the Son of the Father but the Spirit of the Father as proceeding from the Father. For there is no impulse without Spirit. And we speak also of the Spirit of the Son, not as through proceeding from Him, but as proceeding through Him from the Father. For the Father alone is cause.
113 Bodily place is the limit of that which contains, by which that which is contained is contained210 : for example, the air contains but the body is contained211 . But it is not the whole of the containing air which is the place of the contained body, but the limit of the containing air, where it comes into contact with the contained body: and the reason is clearly because that which contains is not within that which it contains.
But there is also mental place where mind is active, and mental and incorporeal nature exists: where mind dwells and energises and is contained not in a bodily but in a mental fashion. For it is without form, and so cannot be contained as a body is. God, then, being immaterial212 and uncircumscribed, has not place. For He is His own place, filling all things and being above all things, and Himself maintaining all things213 . Yet we speak of God having place and the place of God where His energy becomes manifest. For He penetrates everything without mixing with it, and imparts to all His energy in proportion to the fitness and receptive power of each: and by this I mean, a purity both natural and voluntary. For the immaterial is purer than the material, and that which is virtuous than that which is linked with vice. Wherefore by the place of God is meant that which has a greater share in His energy and grace. For this reason the Heaven is His throne. For in it are the angels who do His will and are always glorifying Him214 . For this is His rest and the earth is His footstool215 . For in it He dwelt in the flesh among men216 . And His sacred flesh has been named the foot of God. The Church, too, is spoken of as the place of God: for we have set this apart for the glorifying of God as a sort of consecrated place wherein we also hold converse with Him. Likewise also the places in which His energy becomes manifest to us, whether through the flesh or apart from flesh, are spoken of as the places of God.
But it must be understood that the Deity is indivisible, being everywhere wholly in His entirety and not divided up part by part like that which has body, but wholly in everything and wholly above everything.
Marg). ms. Concerning the place of angel and spirit, and concerning the uncircumscribed.
The angel, although not contained in place with figured form as is body, yet is spoken of as being in place because he has a mental presence and energises in accordance with his nature, and is not elsewhere but has his mental limitations there where he energises. For it is impossible to energise at the same time in different places. For to God alone belongs the power of energising everywhere at the same time. The angel energises in different places by the quickness of his nature and the promptness and speed by which he can change his place: but the Deity, Who is everywhere and above all, energises at the same time in diverse ways with one simple energy.
Further the soul is bound up with the body. whole with whole and not part with part: and it is not contained by the body but contains it as fire does iron, and being in it energises with its own proper energies.
That which is comprehended in place or time or apprehension is circumscribed: while that which is contained by none of these is uncircumscribed. Wherefore the Deity alone is uncircumscribed, being without beginning and without end, and containing all things, and in no wise apprehended217 . For He alone is incomprehensible and unbounded, within no one’s knowledge and contemplated by Himself alone. But the angel is circumscribed alike in time (for His being had commencement) and in place (but mental space, as we said above) and in apprehension. For they know somehow the nature of each other and have their bounds perfectly defined by the Creator. Bodies in short are circumscribed both in beginning and end, and bodily place and apprehension.
Marg). ms. From various sources concerning God and the father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. And concerning the Word and the Spirit.
The Deity, then, is quite unchangeable and invariable. For all things which are not in our hands He hath predetermined by His foreknowledge, each in its own proper and peculiar time and place. And accordingly the Father judgeth no one, but hath given all judgment to the Son218 . For clearly the Father and the Son and also the Holy Spirit judged as God. But the Son Himself will descend in the body as man, and will sit on the throne of Glory (for descending and sitting require circumscribed body), and will judge all the world in justice.
All things are far apart from God, not in place but in nature. In our case, thoughtfulness, and wisdom, and counsel come to pass and go away as states of being. Not so in the case of God: for with Him there is no happening or ceasing to be: for He is invariable and unchangeable: and it would not be right to speak of contingency in connection with Him. For goodness is concomitant with essence. He who longs alway after God, he seeth Him: for God is in all things. Existing things are dependent on that which is, and nothing can be unless it is in that which is. God then is mingled with everything, maintaining their nature: and in His holy flesh the God-Word is made one in subsistence and is mixed with our nature, yet without confusion.No one seeth the Father, save the Son and the Spirit219 .
The Son is the counsel and wisdom and power of the Father. For one may not speak of quality in connection with God, from fear of implying that He was a compound of essence and quality.
The Son is from the Father, and derives from Him all His properties: hence He cannot do ought of Himself220 . For He has not energy peculiar to Himself and distinct from the Father221 .
That God Who is invisible by nature is made visible by His energies, we perceive from the organisation and government of the world222 .
The Son is the Father’s image, and the Spirit the Son’s, through which Christ dwelling in man makes him after his own image223 .
The Holy Spirit is God, being between the unbegotten and the begotten, and united to the Father through the Son224 . We speak of the Spirit of God, the Spirit of Christ, the mind of Christ, the Spirit of the Lord, the very Lord225 , the Spirit of adoption, of truth, of liberty, of wisdom (for He is the creator of all these): filling all things with essence, maintaining all things, filling the universe with essence, while yet the universe is not the measure of His power.
God is everlasting and unchangeable essence, creator of all that is, adored with pious consideration.
God is also Father, being ever unbegotten, for He was born of no one, but hath begotten His co-eternal Son: God is likewise Son, being always with the Father, born of the Father timelessly, everlastingly, without flux or passion, or separation from Him. God is also Holy Spirit, being sanctifying power, subsistential, proceeding from the Father without separation, and resting in the Son, identical in essence with Father and Son.
Word is that which is ever essentially present with the Father. Again, word is also the natural movement of the mind, according to which it is moved and thinks and considers, being as it were its own light and radiance. Again, word is the thought that is spoken only within the heart. And again, word is the utterance226 that is the messenger of thought. God therefore is Word227 essential and enhypostatic: and the other three kinds of word are faculties of the soul, and are not contemplated as having a proper subsistence of their own. The first of these is the natural offspring of the mind, ever welling228 up naturally out of it: the second is the thought: and the third is the utterance.
The Spirit has various meanings. There is the Holy Spirit: but the powers of the Holy Spirit are also spoken of as spirits: the good messenger is also spirit: the demon also is spirit: the soul too is spirit: and sometimes mind also is spoken of as spirit. Finally the wind is spirit and the air is spirit.
114 Uncreate, without beginning, immortal, infinite, eternal, immaterial229 , good, creative, just, enlightening, immutable, passionless, uncircumscribed, immeasurable, unlimited, undefined, unseen, unthinkable, wanting in nothing, being His own rule and authority, all-ruling, life-giving, omnipotent, of infinite power, con-raining and maintaining the universe and making provision for all: all these and such like attributes the Deity possesses by nature, not having received them from elsewhere, but Himself imparting all good to His own creations according to the capacity of each.
The subsistences dwell and are established firmly in one another. For they are inseparable and cannot part from one another, but keep to their separate courses within one another, without coalescing or mingling, but cleaving to each other. For the Son is in the Father and the Spirit: and the Spirit in the Father and the Son: and the Father in the Son and the Spirit, but there is no coalescence or commingling or confusion230 ú And there is one and the same motion: for there is one impulse and one motion of the three subsistences, which is not to be observed in any created nature.
Further the divine effulgence and energy, being one anti simple and indivisible, assuming many varied forms in its goodness among what is divisible and allotting to each the component parts of its own nature, still remains simple and is multiplied without division among the divided, and gathers and converts the divided into its own simplicity231 . For all things long after it and have their existence in it. It gives also to all things being according to their several natures232 , and it is itself the being of existing things, the life of living things, the reason of rational beings, the thought of thinking beings. But it is itself above mind and reason and life and essence.
Further the divine nature has the property of penetrating all things without mixing with them and of being itself impenetrable by anything else. Moreover, there is the property of knowing all things with a simple knowledge and of seeing all things, simply with His divine, all-surveying, immaterial eye, both the things of the present, and the things of the past, and the things of the future, before they come into being233 . It is also sinless, and can cast sin out, and bring salvation: and all that it wills, it can accomplish, but does not will all it could accomplish. For it could destroy the universe but it does not will so to do234 .
1 Jn 1,18 (R.V)..
2 Mt 11,27.
3 1Co 2,11
4 (Sg 13,5,
5 Greg. Nas., Orat. 34
6 Dionys., De div. nom.., c.1.
7 Greg, Nas., Orat. 34.
8 Reading o)per de oujk ejdunavmeqa for o)per de; oujn ejdunavmeqa. Cod. Reg. 3379 gives kai; o) orj dunavmeqa..
9 (Pr 22,28,
10 tav te th`" qeologiva", tav te th`" oijkonomiva".
11 Dionys., De div. nom. c. I; Greg. Naz., Orat. 34 and 37.
12 ou;siva, substance, being.
13 uJpostavsesi, hypostases, persons.
14 mia` de; sunqevtw nJpostavsei.
15 ou;siva, substance, being.
16 Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2.
17 Ibid. c. I.
18 Supr. c. 1; cf). Greg. Naz., Orat. 34.
19 (Ps 14,1 (E.V)..
20 The readings vary between ajgnwsiva" and ajgnoiva".
21 Greg. Naz., Orat. 34.
22 Reading proaivresin; a variant is trophvn.
23 Athan., Cont. Gent.
24 Various reading, Who.
25 Greg. Naz., Orat. 34.
26 The Greek is tw aujtomavtw to the automatic ; prehaps=to the accidental, or, to chance.
27 Or, Whose was the disposing of them in order?
28 Or, Whose are the preserving of them, and the keeping of them in accordance with the principles under which they were first placed?
29 para to; aujtovmaton; or, quite other than the spontaneous, or, than chance.
30 Athan., De Incarn. Verbi, near the beginning). Greg. Naz., Orat. 34.
31 Various reading, It is evident that the divine (to; Qei`on) is incorporeal.
32 Text a`trepton. Most mss. read septovn. So, too, Greg. Naz., Orat. 34, from which these words are taken. An old interpretation is ‘venerabile ese.0’’ But in the opinion of Combetis, Gregory’s text is corrupt, and a[trepton should be read, which reading is also supported by various authorities, including three Cod. Reg. : cf. also De Trinit. in Cyril.
34 Greg. Naz., Orat. 32, 34.
35 Text, swqhvsetai : various reading, sunqhvsetai.
36 (Jr 23,24,
37 Greg. Naz. ut supr.
38 The reference is to the Pythagorean and Aristolian ideas of the heavens as being like the body of Deity, something uncorrupt, different from the four elements, and therefore called a fifth body, or element (stoicei`on). In his Meteor. 1,3, De Caelo 1,3, &c., Aristotle speaks of the Ether as extending from the heaven of the fixed stars down to the moon, as of a nature specially adapted for circular motion, as the first element in rank, but as the fifth, “if we enumerate beginning with the elements directly known by the senses....the subsequently so-called tteutttov otolxelov, quinta essentia.” The other elements, he taught, had the upward motion, or the downward: the earth having the attribute of heaviness, and its natural place in the world being the lowest; fire being the light element, and “its place the sphere next adjoining the sphere of the ether” See Ueberweg’s History of Philosophy, Vol. I. p. 167, Morris’s translation. and the chapter on the De Coelo in Grote’s Aristotle, Vol II. pp. 389, &c.
39 Gref. Naz. ut supr.
40 Or, such as are said to exist in the case of God, or in relation to God. The Greek is, o)sa perij Qeou`, h` peri; Qeo`n ei\nai levgetai.
41 Greg. Naz. ut supr.
42 Greg. Naz., Orat. 32, 34. The Greek is, oijkeiovteron de; ma`llon ejk th`" aJpavntwn ajfairevsew" poiei`sqai to;n lovgon.It may be given thus:-It is more in accordance with the nature of the cae rather to discourse of Him in the way of abstracting from him all that belongs to us.
43 Dionys., De Myst. Theolog.
44 Or, above being ; uJpe;r oujsivan.
45 Or, above being ; uJpe;r oujsivan.
46 Or, but only the things which relate to His nature. The Greek is, o)sa de; levgomen ejpi; Qeou` katafantikw`", o[ th;n fuvsin, ajlla; ta; peri; th;n fuvsin dhloi`.
47 Or, the things that relate to his nature.
48 Various reading, but that He is one.
49 Ex 20,2-3.
50 (Dt 6,4,
51 Is 43,10.
52 Jn 17,3.
53 See Thomas Aquin. I 2,4; also cf. Book iv., c. 21 beneath. The question of the unity of the Deity is similarly dealt with by those of the Fathers who wrote against the Marcionites and the Manichaeans, and by Athenagoras.
54 Or, infinite; ajperivgrapton.
55 Infr. lib. 4,c.21.
56 Greg. Nyss., Prol. Catech.
57 Greg. Naz., Orat. 35.
58 Cf). Dionys., De div. nom., c. 5, 13.
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 dihvrhtai, 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 diaivresi" 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 uJpovstasin. Varios reading, u(parxin, 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, oujdemiva ga;r oJrmh; a[neu pneuvmato". Compare also such passages as these—Greg. Naz., Orat. 1,3: 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, 1,4. where we have the statement ou(tw kai; to; a[gion Pneu`ma w)sper oJrmh; kai kivnhsi", ejndotevra th`" uJperfuou`" ejkeinh" oujsiva", so the Holy Spirit is like an impulse and movement within that supernatural essence.
65 Or, substance; oujsiva.
66 Text faneru`sa: various reading, fevrousa (cf). Cyril, De Trinitate).
67 Greg. Nyss., Catech., c.2.
68 Text, ajkouvsante": variant, ajkouvonte" (so in Cyril)
69 (So Cyril speaks frequently of the Holy spirit is proceeding from the Father and being (einai) and abiding (mevnein) in the Son; as also of the Spirit as being of the Son and having His nature in Him (ejx aujtou` kai; ejmpefukw;"). 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 (ejnevrgeia fusikh; kai; zwsa, to; ejnerge;" tou` ijo`), Cyril, Dial 7 ad Hermiam. such terms as proboleu;" ejkfantorikou` pneuvmato", the Producer, or, Emitter of the revealing Spirit, and the e(kfansi" or e[llamyi", 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;" pa`san provqesin : variant qevlhsin in almost all the codices.
73 Greg. Orat. 38, and elsewhere.
74 Greg. Nyss., Catech., c.3.
75 (Ps 119,89,
76 Ib. Ps 107,30.
77 Text, diamevnei : variant, mevnei
78 Ps 104,30.
79 Ib. Ps 33,6.
80 (Jb 33,4,
81 Basil, De Spir. Sancto, ad Amphil. c. 18.
82 Or, principle, ajrchvn.
83 Cf. Ps 135,6.
84 Or, penetrating, ejpibateuvousan.
87 uJperqeon, uJperavgaqov, uJperplhvrh.
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 Mt 18,19.
91 Or, principle, ajrchvn.
92 proboleva. The term probolhv, 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 aJpovrjrJoia, efflux, or tmh`si", segmen, or probolhv, 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 gennhvtwr and proboleuv", and of the Spirit as provblhma.
93 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
95 1Co 1,24.
96 The Word enhypostatic, oJ Lovgo" ejnupovstato".
97 (He 1,3,
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 suvn, in, to express the idea of the suvnafeia, 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 (ejnei`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, ajnovmoion pantelw`", varint, ajnovmoion pantelw`" katAE oujsivan, 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 ajrreuvstw" genna` kai; ekto;" 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. 3,iv.; Greg. Naz., Orat. 45.
112 Infra, Book 2,c.3.
113 Greg. Naz., Orat. 45.
114 Text, mhdAE o(lw". Variant in many codices is mhdamw`", 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 ejnupovstaton; 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.
122 Basil, bk. 2,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 Jn 15,26.
128 Cf. Basil, Contra Eunom, 5,; Athan., Contra Arian., ii.; Cyril, Thes., assert. 32; Epiphan., Haeres. 73, &c.
129 Ep 3,14-15: Cyril. Thes., assert. 32: Dionys., De divin. nom., c. I.
130 In the first Book of his Contra Arianos Athanasius refers to Christ’s word in St. Jn 14,28. He remarks that He does not say “the Father is better (kreivsswn) than I,”" lest it should be inferred that the Son is not eaual to the Father in Dieine nature, but of another nature; but “the Father is greater (meivzwn) 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 (ph`" oujsiva" th;n ijdiovthta). 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 Larin Fathers. In the ixth and xth Books of his De Trinitate Hilary refers to this, and says that the Father is called ‘greater0’ propter auctoritatem, meaning by auctoritas not power, but what the Greeks understand by aijtiovth", causation, principle or authorship of being. So also Soebadius says that the Father is rightly called ‘greater,0’ because He alone is without an author cf His being. But Latin theologians usually spoke of the Father as ‘greater,0’ 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.
131 Jn 14,28.
132 tou;" aijw`na"; Heb 1,3.
133 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37; Athan., Contr. Arian., bk. i.
134 faivnein, shines.
135 See Cyril, Ad Herm., dial. 2; Irenaeus. 4,14, 5,6, and Jn of Damascus, himself in his Dial. Contr. Manich.
136 Greg. Naz., Orat. 13, 31 and 37.
137 St. Jn 5,19.
138 tevleia ujpovstasi"; a perfect hyposlasis.
139 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
141 Greg. Naz., Orat. 49.
142 qeou`n ouj qeouvmenon.
143 Text ouj ga;r e[k tunosAE ejx eJautou` ga;r to` ei\nai e[cei, oujdev ti tw`n o(saper e[cei ejx eJtevrou e[ceiAE Another reading is, ouj ga;r e[k tino" to; einai e[cei, oujde; ti tw`n osa e[cei, i.e). or He does not derive His being nor any one of His qualities from any one.
144 See Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 35; Thomas Aquin., I. Quaest. 35, art I.
145 Greg. Naz., Orat. 25.
146 See Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 3; Greg. Naz., Orat. 35. So Augustine (Contr. max. 3,14, 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.
147 Reading, dia; to ei\nai to;n Patevra a variant is, dia; to; ei\nai aujto;v Pate;ra, as also in Cyrilli, De Trinitate.
148 Greg. Naz., Orat. 23.
149 Ibid., Orat., 25.
150 uJpovstasei"; hypostases.
151 See Athan., Contra Arian., Orat. 5.
152 Greg. Naz., Orat. 13 and 29: Athan., Orat. Contr. Arian.
153 The Greek is o(qen oujde; levgomen to; ei\do" ejx uJpostavsewn, ajllAE ejn uJpostavsesin. See Basil., Orat. Contr. Sabell., Ar. et Eunom.
154 See Greg. Naz., Orat. I and 37.
155 Greg. Naz., Orat. 29, 34 and 40.
156 Greg. Naz., Otat. 37.
157 Ibid. 32.
158 ph;n th`" gnwvmh" suvhpnoian; co-operation of judgment, or, disposition.
159 Greg. Naz., Orat. 40. The Greek is singular and difficult: to; e[n e[xalma th`" kinhvsew"; the one forthleaping of the motion, or movement.Origen speaks of hJ ajpAE auJtou` kivnhsi" (I. 436 A).. In Athanasius (I. 253 C)). kivnhsi" has the metaphorical sense of indignation.
160 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37: Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab. et Orat. 32.
161 Basil., Epist. 43.
162 Jn 14,11.
163 eij" e)n ai[tion. so elsewhere it is put, w(sper miva ajrchv, kata; tou`to ei| " Qeov". 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 e(nwsi" ejx ou| kai; pro;" o)n a[nagetai ta; eJxh`".
164 The Greek runs thus: —kai; th;n ejn ajllhvlai" pericwvrhsin e[cousi divca pavsh" sunaloifh`" kai; sumfuvrsew". The term pericwrhsi", 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. 4,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 otherwords 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 confuting that heresy. For, in order to that mutual existence (in each other) which is descerned in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it is absolutely necessary that there 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 itsef... Lastly, this is to be especially considered—tht 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 ohter unions.”
165 Greg., Orat. 29; Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2.
166 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
167 Greg. Naz., Orat. 19 and 29.
168 Text, ai[tiom: variant, ajnaivtion, causeless.
169 Maxim. Epist. ad Marin.
170 ejk tou` UiJou de; to; Pneu`ma ouj levgomen. See also ch. xii., kai; UiJou` Pneu`ma oujc wJ" ejx aujtou`, and at the close of the Epist. ad Jordan, Pneu`ma UiJou` mh ejx UiJou`.
171 (Rm 8,9,
172 Jn 20,29.
173 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
174 The Greek runs:—h] scevsin tina; pro;" ti; twn ajntidiastellomevnwn, h( ti; tw`n parepomenwn th/ fu;sei, h] ejnevrgeian.
175 Rendered in the Septuagint Version, JEgwv eijmi oJ w[n.Some of the Fathers made much of the fact that it is not the neuter form to; o[n.
176 (Ex 3,14,
177 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
178 Dionys., De div. nom. c. 2, 3 and 4. this sentence and the next are absent in some mss., and are rather more obscurely stated than usual with Jn of Damascus.
179 In his Cratylus Plato gives this etymology, and Eusebius quotes it in his Prep. Evangel. 1,Clement of Alexandria refers to it more than once in his Strom., bk. iv., and in his Protrept., where he says—Sidera qevou" ejk tou’ qevein, deos a currendo nominarunt.
180 (Dt 4,24
181 2M 10,5.
182 kata; th;n qelhtikh;n aujtou` a[cronon e[nnoian. See Thomas Aquin., I., II. Quaest. 17, Art. I, where he says, est actus rationis, praesupposito tamen actu voluntatis.
183 This sentence is absent in some mss., being added at the end of the chapter with the mark scovl.
184 Dionys., De div. nom., c. 5.
185 parevpontai th` fuvsei; follow the nature, are consequenta of the nature, or accompany it.
186 Greg. Naz., Orat. 45; cf. also Epist. ad. Evagr., and Greg. Nyss., Epist. ad Ablab.; Dionys., De div. nom., c.2; Basil, Epist. 43 ad Greg. fratr.
187 Dionys., De div. nom., c. 2; Greg. Naz., Orat. 37 and 45; Nyss. Epist. ad. Ablab.
188 oj de; aJlhqh;" lovgo".
189 Text, a[nqrwpo", which is absent in some codices and in Dionys., De div. nom., from which these words are taken.
190 Greg. Naz., Orat. 24:Dionys., De div. nom., c.2.
191 Dionys., De div. nom., c. I.;De Cael. Hier., c. 15.
192 Greg. Naz., Orat. 37.
193 Text, pavnta to;n a[nqrwpon: variant, a[panta.
194 Dionys., De div. nom., c. I.
195 Athan., Orat. 2, Cont. Arian.; Cyril, Thes., assert. 13.
196 Text reads, wJ" ujpavrcio": surely a misprint for wJ" uJperavrci".
197 This chapter is not found in the oldest copies, but only in a few of the latest date. In Cod. Reg. 3109 it comes in after bk. 4,c. 9, and in Cod. Reg. 3451, after bk. 2,c. 2.
198 Greg. Naz., Orat. 36.
199 Dioyns., De div. nom., c. I
200 Text, eij de; kai; tw`n o[ntwn aij gnwsei", to; (perouvsion pw`" gnwqhvsetai; a variant, eij de; aiJ fuvsei: a[gnwstoi, aujto; uJperouvsion pw`" gnwqhsetai). If the natures are unknown how can the superessential itself be known?
201 Or, super-substantial, uJperouvsio".
202 aJnouvsio", non-substantial, without substance.
203 Coloss. 1,17.
204 Dionys., De div. nom., c. 5.
205 Text, ajparaleivprw": variant, ajparallavktw", unchangeably, an adverb used by the Greeks in connection with the equality of the divine persons.
206 proboleuv", Lat. productor, Emitter.
207 Or, Word: lovgo".
208 qevkhsi", cf). Cyril, Th., assert. 7; Athan., Contr. Arian. 4 ; Greg. Nyss., Contr. Eunom., p. 345.
209 hJ monh; duvnami" tou Patro;", h prokatartikh; th`" tw`n pavntwn poihvsew". The hJ prokatartikhv is understood by some to mean the primordial or immediate Cause, by others to be better rendered as the primordial Power or Energy. Basil in his De Spiritu Sancto speaks of the Father as the primordial Cause (prokatartikh; aijtiva) in the creation of the world.
210 Arist., Physic, bk. 4,4.
211 Text, oi|on oJ ajh;r perievxei, to` de` sw`ma perievcetaiAE oujc o[lo" de oJ perievcwn aJhvr, &c. Variant, oi|on oJ ajh;r perievcei tovde sw`ma, oujc o[lo", &c.
212 a[?lo" w[n. Greg. Naz., Orat. 34, Greg. Nyss., De anim. et resurr., &c. speak of God as nowhere and as everythere.
213 Greg. Naz., Orat. 34.
214 Is 6,1, seq.
215 Is 66,1..
216 Ba 3,38
217 Greg. Naz., Orat. 44.
218 Jn 5,22.
219 Jn 6,46.
220 Ibid. Jn 5,30.
221 Greg., Orat. 36.
222 (Sg 12,5,
223 Basil, Cont. Eun., bk. 5,
224 mevson tou` ajgennhv tou kai; tou` gennhtoy`, kai diAE Uijou` tw` Patri; sunptovhenon.
226 proforikov" is absent in mss. but added by a second hand in one codex.
227 oujsiwvdh" tev ejsti kai;ejnupovstato". Against the Sabellian doctrine, the views of Paul of Samosata., &c.
229 Text, to; a[u>lon: in one codex there is added as emendation or explanation, to; ajplou"v, to; ajsuvnqeton.
230 Greg. Naz., Orat. I, 13 and 40.
231 Dioyns., De div. nom., c. 5.
232 Text, kaqw;" e[cei fuvsew": in the margin of the manuscript is wJ" e[cousi.
233 (Da 2,22,
234 Greg., Orat. 40.
Damascus Orthodox faith 109