To Philagrius on Consubstantiality

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

I wonder greatly at you, and I am especially astonished at the attentiveness of your mind: that in propositions of this kind, and in examining such a master, you give us occasion by your precise questions to speak about them of necessity, and so bring about a contest of argument between us. For since you put questions to us in a fitting and suitable way, it follows of necessity that we give clear answers to your questions. And the question you now put is of the same kind: it concerns how matters stand with the nature of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (for which, speaking precisely, one mostly says 'essence', or also 'nature'). Which of the two is it, the divine nature: something simple or something compound? For if it is something simple, how will you keep the threefold number of those named above? For the simple is unique in its kind and without number; but what can be counted is necessarily not simple, even if it is not present as a plurality. And what can be divided is capable of suffering, for division is a suffering. If, then, the nature of the Most High is simple, the giving of names is superfluous; but if the giving of names is true, the unique and simple vanishes at once from your sight. Of what kind, then, will his real nature be? This you have asked us, and Scripture indeed offers you the true proofs of it; for it is no fancy by which faith without proof (as though there were neither proof offered you by Scripture nor testimony of ancient sayings) seeks to hide the weakness of its confidence, but a precise inquiry undertaken with insight and piety, in which reflection sets out clearly the reliability of the reasoning. Let Scripture therefore come to us and tell us how it is fitting to think of God: which of the two he is, simple or compounded of three. For the threefold naming compels us to say and believe the latter; and some make use of this and put forward confused and wholly untenable teachings, thinking that a being undergoes a division together with the precise naming of names. These, as you have said, we must let defend themselves for the confused teaching of their delusion; but we, rightly understanding their errors, set our own view against them.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

First, then, we know (and so it will correspond exactly to the discussion that follows) that God is a simple substance. The simple is in every respect also indivisible, and it has by nature simplicity and incorporeality.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

But perhaps the use of different names speaks against us, and the threefold number abolishes the uniqueness of the Most High? Must we then, because of the uniqueness, give up confessing the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit? By no means. For the knowledge of the indivisibility of the Most High is not refuted by the giving of names. Things merely perceptible and many-named have many names, since each of them has a multitude of names in that it is named by all peoples; but they have no proper name at all, because there is not even a precise name for things merely thought and incorporeal. For how can things be named precisely which are not seen and cannot be grasped at all by the instruments of the human senses? Let us take a small part of the things of thought, for example the soul of each rational being. The soul is named with a feminine word, yet it does not in any way consist of a feminine nature, for it is neither male nor female in its essence. And with the word (λόγος) which is begotten of it the case is similar: it has a masculine name, yet it is wholly outside what we call sex and bodiliness. If, then, these other things which are perceptible to the mind, soul and word, have no proper name, how can we claim that the first principles, which far transcend all concepts, can be named with proper names? The added name (that is, as Father, as Son, as Spirit) is useful, because it is necessary and first brings us to a grasp of the ideas; but men closely join with these added names in their thoughts the divisibility of the essence too. It follows from this that we must recognize as the knowable points of the truth that the divine essence of the Most High is inseparable, unique and indivisible; but in so far as it serves the redemption of our souls, it is also given different names (properly: it appears divided by the added names), and it is necessary that we divide it as we have said. [4] For just as the soul, which is something knowable, begets an endless multitude of ideas, and is neither divided by the begetting of the word nor ever made poor (exhausted) by the multitude of ideas, but on the contrary is very rich and in no way poor; and just as the spoken word of each of us, which is not separated from the soul that brought it forth, nevertheless is also present in the same condition in the souls of those who hear it, not being separated from it while it is with them, but rather bringing about a unity and indivisibility between them and our souls: so I hold that the Son too is never separated from the Father by anything.

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

Further, the Holy Spirit too is [not separated from the Father] in the same way, just as the thought is the same as the mind. For as there is nothing between the mind and the thought and the soul that could cause a division and separation of the soul, so too between the Holy Spirit and the Saviour and the Father a division or separation can never be conceived, because the nature of these spiritual and divine beings, as we have said, cannot be divided. Or again, just as there can be no separation between the disc of the sun and its ray, because of the impassibility, incorporeality, simplicity and uncompoundedness [of light], but the ray clings to the sun's disc and yet is poured out from the sun, as from a spring, shining on every side through the rays, bringing us as it were a flood of light and lighting up the world at once with a sea of light: so in the same way Jesus the Enlightener and the Holy Spirit are sent to us as rays of the Father. For just as the rays of light, which without division among themselves have unity in essence, are not separated from the sun nor parted from one another, and yet send us the benefit of light, so too our Redeemer and the Holy Spirit are twin rays of the Father, and the light is brought to us: for "I am the light, and one with the Father."

Translated by Claude from V. Ryssel's German translation (1880) of the Syriac; neither is shown

As from a spring of water a useful aqueduct sends out abundant water, and it happens that the aqueduct is overfilled by the volume of water, and the overflow, no longer held back, divides in its course into two rivers, and yet in the beginning has only one course from one spring; and, though it divides into two separate branches, it loses not the least of its substance by the division, because the stream is divided by being split into branches but keeps one and the same mass of its fullness of water (for even if each of these rivers is thought a complete river because of the distance of place, and they are cut off from the spring by the distance, it always has the same beginning, which joins it to the spring): so the God of all good things, the true guide [of the world], the Father of the Redeemer, the first ground of life and the planted stock of immortality, the everlasting spring of life, has sent to us a grace that is known in two ways, through Christ and through the Holy Spirit, without suffering any loss in his essence. For no diminution befalls him because of their coming, though they come all the way to us, existing inseparable from the Father without becoming less; for, as we showed from the beginning, the essence of the Most High is indivisible. Much, then, most honoured friend, we have been able to find; but for a clear exposition of the pressing question, how we are to believe concerning the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, more is needed than what has been said here. But since it is easy for you and those like you to understand great things from small ones, I have made this theoretical discussion here, as it seemed fitting to me.