The God Who Is Tri-Personal
- samshmn
- Nov 6
- 25 min read
The list of quotes cited here is taken from David W. Bercot’s A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs, published by Hendrickson Publishers, Peabody, Massachusetts in 1998, pp. 241-255.
The author will mention the particular volume and page number of the ten-volume set of The Ante-Nicene Fathers, ed. Alexander Roberts and James Donaldson, 1885–1887, reprinted by Hendrickson in 1994). For instance, this 1.144 means volume 1, p. 144. Bercot will also signify whether the Christian writer is an eastern and/or western theologian/apologist.
Here are the links where this set can be accessed online:
These citations show that the early Christians differentiated the three Divine Persons by the unique personal properties they possessed in distinction from one another. For instance, the Father is unbegotten and derives his substance from no one. The Son, on the other hand, is begotten and therefore derives his divine substance from the Father without any beginning, since he is eternal and uncreated. Similarly, the Spirit is differentiated by virtue of His timeless spiration by Father through the Son. From this understanding of the internal relations of the Trinity the early Christians saw a type of subordination among the Divine Persons. These holy men of faith saw the Son and Spirit being subordinate to the Father due to his being their Cause, not in a temporal sense where the Father brought them into existence from/out of nothing. These early writers, theologians, apologists, etc., all taught and affirmed that both the Son and Spirit are uncreated and possessed the fullness of the divine nature.
This type of subjection is known as relational subordination in contrast to ontological subordination, which teaches that the Son and Spirit are in subjection by virtue of being creatures that possess a different and inferior essence from the Father. The true orthodox Christians condemned this kind of subjection, which was actually held by the heretics such as Arius and his followers.
With the foregoing in perspective I now cite from Bercot’s work. All emphasis will be mine.
B. Difference in personal attributes
But of that day and hour no one knows, neither the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. Mark 13:32.
No man has seen God at any time; the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has explained Him. John 1:18 [NAS].
Most assuredly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do; for whatever He does, the Son also does in like manner. For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself does. John 5:19, 20.
If you loved Me, you would rejoice because I said, “I am going to the Father,” for My Father is greater than I. John 14:28.
I am ascending to My Father and your Father, and to My God and your God. John 20:17.
For us there is only one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live. 1 Cor. 8:6.
Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. 2 Cor. 1:3.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. Col. 1:15.
He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. 1 Tim. 6:15, 16.
[God] has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also he made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You.” Heb. 1:2–9.
He who overcomes, I will make him a pillar in the temple of My God, and he shall go out no more. And I will write on him the name of My God and the name of the city of My God. Rev. 3:12.
The God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Polycarp (c. 135, E), 1.35.
The Son foretells that He will be saved by the same God. He does not boast of accomplishing anything through His own will or might. For when on earth, He acted in the very same manner. He answered to man who addressed Him as “Good Master”: “Why do you call me good? One is good, my Father who is in heaven.” Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.249.
You must not imagine that the Unbegotten God Himself came down or went up from any place. For the ineffable Father and Lord of everything neither has come to any place, nor walks, nor sleeps, nor rises up, but remains in His own place. . . . He is not moved or confined to a spot in the whole world, for He existed before the world was made. How, then, could He talk with anyone, or be seen by anyone, or appear on the smallest portion of the earth? . . . Therefore, neither Abraham, nor Isaac, nor Jacob, nor any other man saw the Father, who is the inexpressible Lord of all, including Christ. Rather, they saw One who was the Father’s Son, according to the Father’s will. The Son is also God and the Angel, for He ministered to His [Father’s] will. Justin Martyr (c. 160, E), 1.263.
Even the Lord, the very Son of God, acknowledged that the Father alone knows the very day and hour of judgment. For He plainly declares, “But of that day and that hour no man knows, neither the Son, but the Father only.” If, then, the Son was not ashamed to ascribe the knowledge of that day to the Father only (but declared what was true regarding the matter), neither let us be ashamed to reserve for God those greater questions that may occur to us. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.401.
For if anyone asks about the reason why the Father, who has fellowship with the Son in all things, has been declared by the Lord alone to know the hour and the day, he will find at present no more suitable, becoming, or safe reason than this (since, indeed, the Lord is the only true Master): that we may learn through Him that the Father is above all things. For He says, “The Father is greater than I.” The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.402.
He is discovered to be the one only God who created all things, who alone is Omnipotent, and who is the only Father. He founded and formed all things. . . . He has fitted and arranged all things by His Wisdom. He contains all things, but He Himself can be contained by no one. . . . But there is one only God, the Creator. He is above every principality, power, dominion, and virtue. He is Father; He is God; He is Founder; He is Maker; He is Creator. He made those things by Himself, that is, through His Word and His Wisdom. . . . He is the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. . . . He is the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. Through His Word, who is His Son, through Him, He is revealed and manifested to all to whom He is revealed. For [only] those know Him to whom the Son has revealed Him. But the Son, eternally coexisting with the Father, from of old, yes, from the beginning, always reveals the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.406.
Everyone saw the Father in the Son. For the Father is the invisible [archetype] of the Son. But the Son is the visible [image] of the Father. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.469.
It is manifest that the Father is indeed invisible, of whom also the Lord said, “No man has seen God at any time”. . . . As also the Lord said: “The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.491.
He has a full faith in one God Almighty, of whom are all things; and in the Son of God, Jesus Christ our Lord, by whom are all things. Irenaeus (c. 180, E/W), 1.508.
John the apostle says: “No man has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him.” Here he calls invisibility and inexpressible glory “the bosom of God.” . . . No one can rightly express Him wholly. For on account of His greatness, He is ranked as the All. He is the Father of the universe. . . . If we name Him, we cannot do so properly. For example, we can call Him the One, or the Good, or Mind, or Absolute Being, or Father, or God, or Creator, or Lord. . . . For each one by itself does not express God. However, all together, they are indicative of the power of the Omnipotent. . . . But there is nothing prior to the Unbegotten. It is sufficient, then, that we understand the Unknown by divine grace and by the Word alone who proceeds from Him. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.463, 464.
The Unoriginated Being is one, the Omnipotent God. One, too, is the First-Begotten. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.493.
All benefit pertaining to life, in its highest reason, proceeds from the Sovereign God, the Father. He is over all. He is consummated by the Son, who also on this account “is the Savior of all men.” . . . This is in accordance with the command and injunction of the One who is nearest the First Cause, that is, the Lord. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.518.
From the Son, we are to learn the remoter Cause of the universe, the Father. He is the most ancient and the most beneficent of all. He is not capable of expression by the voice. Rather, He is to be worshipped with reverence, silence, and holy wonder, and to be supremely venerated. Clement of Alexandria (c. 195, E), 2.523.
The object of our worship is the One God, He who by His commanding Word, His arranging Wisdom, His mighty Power, brought forth from nothing this entire mass of our world. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.31.
For He who ever spoke to Moses was the Son of God Himself, who, too, was always seen. For no one ever saw God the Father and lived. Tertullian (c. 197, W), 3.163.
How can it be that anything—except the Father—could be older, and on this account indeed nobler, than the Son of God, the Only-Begotten and First-Begotten Word? Tertullian (c. 200, W), 3.487.
He calls Christ “the image of the invisible God.” We, in like manner, say that the Father of Christ is invisible, for we know that it was the Son who was seen in ancient times. Tertullian (c. 207, W), 3.470.
The Father is not the same as the Son, for they differ from each other in the manner of their being. For the Father is the entire substance. However, the Son is a derivation and portion of the whole. He Himself acknowledges this: “My Father is greater than I.” In the Psalm, His subordination is described as being “a little lower than the angels.” Thus, the Father is distinct from the Son, being greater than the Son, inasmuch as He who begets is one, and He who is begotten is another. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.604.
You reply, “If He was God who spoke, and He was also God who created . . . two Gods are declared.” If you are so venturesome and harsh, reflect awhile. . . . Listen to the Psalm in which two are described as God: “Thy throne, O God, is forever and ever. The scepter of Your kingdom is a scepter of righteousness. . . . Therefore, God, even your God, has anointed You.” Now, since He here speaks to God, and affirms that God is anointed by God, He must have affirmed that Two are God. . . . “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” A much more ancient testimony we have also in Genesis: “Then the Lord rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven.” . . . That there are, however, two Gods or two Lords, is a statement that at no time proceeds out of our mouths. I will therefore not speak of Gods at all, nor of Lords, but I will follow the apostle. So that if the Father and the Son are both to be invoked, I will call the Father “God” and invoke Jesus Christ as “Lord.” But when Christ alone [is spoken of], I will be able to call Him “God,” as the same apostle says: “Of whom is Christ, who is over all, God blessed forever.” For I should give the name of “sun” even to a sunbeam, when considered by itself. But if I were to mention the sun from which the ray emanates, I certainly should at once withdraw the name of sun from the mere beam. For although I do not make two suns, still I will reckon both the sun and its ray to be as much two things and two forms of one undivided substance—just as God and His Word, the Father and the Son. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.608.
It will therefore follow that by Him who is invisible we must understand the Father in the fullness of His majesty. At the same time, we recognize the Son as visible because of the dispensation of His derived existence. For example, it is not permitted us to contemplate the sun in the full amount of its substance which is in the heavens. Rather, we can only endure with our eyes a ray of the sun. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.609.
The Word was in the beginning “with God,” the Father. It was not the Father who was with the Word. For although the Word was God, he was with God, for He is God of God. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.610.
Of the Father, however, he says to Timothy: “Whom no one among men has seen, nor indeed can see.” And he adds to the description in still fuller terms: “Who alone has immortality and dwells in the light that no man can approach.” It was of Him, too, that he had said in a previous passage: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, to the only God.” So that we might apply even the contrary qualities to the Son Himself. . . . It was the Son, therefore, who was always seen, and the Son who always conversed with men. This is the Son who has always worked by the authority and will of the father. For “the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He sees the Father do.” Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.611.
[The Father] is named without the Son whenever He is defined as the Principle in the character of its First Person. In those situations, He had to be mentioned before the name of the Son. For it is the Father who is acknowledged in the first place. And after the Father, the Son is named. Therefore, “there is one God, the Father,” and without Him, there is no one else. And when He Himself makes this declaration, He does not deny the Son. . . . For as this Son in undivided and inseparable from the Father, so is He to be reckoned as being in the Father (even when He is not named). . . . Suppose the sun were to say, “I am the sun, and there is none other besides me, except my ray.” Would you not have remarked how useless such a statement was, as if the ray were not itself reckoned in the sun? Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.613.
The Father, however, has no origin. For He proceeds from no one. Nor can He be seen, since He was not begotten. He who has always been alone could never have had order or rank. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.614.
Christ is also ignorant of the last day and hour, which is known to the Father only. He awards the kingdom to His disciples, as He says it had been appointed to Him by the Father. He has power to ask, if He wishes, legions of angels from the Father for His help. He exclaims that God had forsaken Him. Tertullian (c. 213, W), 3.623.
“This is God, and no other can be considered in comparison to Him.” He said that rightly. For in comparison to the Father, who will be accounted of? . . . “He has found out all the way of knowledge and has given it unto Jacob His servant and to Israel His beloved.” He spoke well. For who is Jacob His servant? Who is Israel His beloved? It is He of whom He cries, saying, “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. Hear Him.” So having received all knowledge from the Father, the perfect Israel (the true Jacob) afterwards showed himself upon earth. . . . This, then, is He to whom the Father has given all knowledge. Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.225.
“Then He Himself will also be subject to Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all.” If, therefore, all things are put under Him with the exception of Him who put them under Him, the Son is Lord of all, and the Father is Lord of Him. Thereby, there is manifest in all one God, to whom all things are made subject together with Christ, to whom the Father has made all things subject—with the exception of Himself. And this, indeed, is said by Christ Himself, as when in the Gospel He confessed Him to be His Father and His God. For Christ speaks in this manner: “I go to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God.” Hippolytus (c. 205, W), 5.226.
The Father generates an uncreated Son and brings forth a Holy Spirit—not as if He had no previous existence, but because the Father is the origin and source of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Origen (c. 225, E), 4.270.
By His spiritual healing aids, the Son disposes all things to receive at the end the goodness of the Father. It was from His sense of that goodness that He answered him who addressed the Only-Begotten with the words, “Good Master.” In reply, Jesus said, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but one, God the Father.” This we have discussed elsewhere, especially in dealing with the question of the One who is greater than the Creator. Christ we have taken to be the Creator, and the Father is the One who is greater than He. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.318.
The archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God—who was in the beginning and who by being with God is at all times Divine, not possessing divinity of Himself, but by His being with the Father. . . . The Father is the fountain of divinity; the Son is the fountain of reason [Gr. logos]. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.323.
If all things were made (as in this passage also) through the Logos, then they were not made by the Logos—but by a stronger and greater than He. And who else could this be but the Father? Origen (c. 228, E), 9.328.
Life, in the full sense of the word, especially after what we have been saying on the subject, belongs perhaps to God and to no one but Him. . . . It says about God . . . “who alone has immortality.” No living being besides God has life free from change and variation. Why should we be in further doubt? Even Christ did not share the Father’s immortality. For He “tasted death for every man.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.333.
The Savior is here called simply “Light.” But in the catholic Epistle of this same John, we read that God is Light. This, it has been maintained, furnishes a proof that the Son is not different from the Father in substance. Another student, however, looking into the matter more closely and with a sounder judgment, will say that the Light that shines in darkness and is not overtaken by it is not the same as the Light in which there is no darkness at all. The Light that shines in the darkness comes upon this darkness, as it were, and is pursued by it. Yet, in spite of attempts made upon it, it is not overtaken. But the Light in which there is no darkness at all neither shines on darkness, nor is at first pursued by it. . . . But in proportion as God, since He is the Father of truth, is more and greater than truth, and since He is the Father of wisdom, is greater and more excellent than wisdom. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.336.
Let no one suppose that we say this from any lack of piety towards the Christ of God. For as the Father alone has immortality and our Lord took upon Himself the death He died for us (out of His love of men), so also to the Father alone the words apply, “In Him there is no darkness,” since Christ took upon Himself our darkness—out of His goodwill towards men. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.338.
“No one has seen God at any time. The Only-Begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has declared Him.” Origen (c. 228, E), 9.343.
[John the Baptist] answers by exalting the superior nature of Christ—that He has such virtue as to be invisible in His deity, though present to every man and extending over the whole universe. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.365, 366.
The Father sent the One who is the God of the living. . . . The Father also alone is good, and He is greater than He who was sent by Him. . . . He who first of all was girded about with the whole creation, in addition to the Son’s being in Him, granted to the Savior to pervade the whole creation. For He [the Word] was second after him and was God the Word. Origen (c. 228, E), 9.370.
Pay careful attention to what follows, where He is called God: “For your throne, O God, is forever and ever. . . . Therefore, God, even your God, has anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.” Observe that the prophet, speaking familiarly to God, . . . says that this God had been anointed by a God who was His God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.421.
We charge the Jews with not acknowledging Him to be God, to whom testimony was borne in many passages by the prophets. Those passages testify to the effect that He was a mighty Power and a God next to the God and Father of all things. For we maintain that it was to Him that the Father gave the command . . . “Let there be light.” . . . We say that to Him were also addressed the words, “Let Us make man in Our own image and likeness.” The Logos, when commanded, obeyed all of the Father’s will. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.433.
Our Lord and Savior, hearing himself on one occasion addressed as “Good Master,” referred the person who used it to His own Father, saying, “Why do you call me good? There is no one good but one, that is, God the Father.” It was in accordance with sound reason that this was said by the Son of His Father’s love, for He was the image of the goodness of God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.548.
Our Savior, also, does not partake of righteousness. Rather, being “Righteousness” Himself, he is partaken of by the righteous. . . . It is also a question for investigation, whether the “Only-Begotten” and “First-Born of every creature” is to be called “substance of substances,” . . . while above all there is his Father and God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.602, 603.
But the God and Father of all things is not the only Being who is great in our judg
ment. For He has imparted Himself and His greatness to His Only-Begotten and First-Born of every creature, in order that He—being the image of the invisible God—might preserve, even in His greatness, the image of the Father. For it was not possible that there could exist a well-proportioned, so to speak, and beautiful image of the invisible God unless it also preserved the image of His greatness. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.605.
He to whom God bore testimony through the prophets, and who has done great things in heaven and earth, should receive on those grounds honor that is second only to that which is given to the Most High God. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.634.
Again Celsus [a pagan critic] proceeds: “If you were to tell the Christians that Jesus is not the Son of God, but that God is the Father of all, and that He alone should be truly worshipped, they would not consent to discontinue their worship of Him who is their leader in the sedition. And they call Him the Son of God, not out of any extreme reverence for God, but from an extreme desire to extol Jesus Christ.” . . . [ORIGEN’S REPLY:] There is nothing extravagant or unbecoming to the character of God in the doctrine that He should have begotten such an only Son. And no one will persuade us that such a One is not a Son of the unbegotten God and Father. . . . He is the Son who has been most highly exalted by the Father. Granted, there may be some individuals among the multitudes of believers who are not in entire agreement with us [i.e., the Monarchists]. They incautiously assert that the Savior is the Most High God. However, we do not concur with them. Rather, we believe Him when He says, “The Father who sent me is greater than I.” We would not, therefore, make him whom we call Father inferior to the Son of God—as Celsus accuses us of doing. Origen (c. 248, E), 4.644.
The rule of truth requires that we should first of all believe on God the Father and Lord Almighty. He is the absolutely perfect Founder of all things. . . . Over all these things, He has left room for no superior God (such as some people conceive). For He contains all things, having nothing vacant beyond Himself. . . . He is always unbounded, for nothing is greater than He. He is always eternal, for nothing is more ancient than He. For He who is without beginning can be preceded by no one, in that He has no time. On that account, He is immortal . . . and He excludes the mode of time. . . . If He could be understood, he would be smaller than the human mind that could conceive Him. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.611, 612.
The Lord rightly declares Him alone to be good. . . . He is declared to be one, having no equal. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.614.
Although He was in the form of God, He did not think of robbery—that He should be equal with God. For although He remembered that He was God from God the Father, He never either compared or associated Himself with God the Father. He was mindful that He was from His Father and that He possessed that very thing that He is because the Father had given it to Him. . . . He yielded all obedience to the Father and still yields it as ever. From that it is shown that He thought that the claim of a certain divinity would be robbery—to wit, that of equalling himself with God the Father. Rather, on the other hand, obedient and subject to all His Father’s rule and will, He even was content to take on Himself the form of a servant. Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.633.
If He were not the Son . . . and if He were designated to be as great as the Father, He would have caused two Fathers. Thereby, He would have proved the existence of two Gods. Had He been invisible, as compared with the Invisible and thereby declared equal, He would have shown forth two Invisibles. Thus, once again, He would have proved there to be two Gods. . . . But now, whatever He is, He is not of Himself, because He is not unborn. Rather, He is of the Father, because He is begotten. . . . He is not from any other source than the Father, as we have already said before. Owing His origin to His Father, He could not make a disagreement in the divinity by the number of two Gods. For His beginning was in being born of Him who is one God. . . . Therefore, He declared that God is one, in that He proved God to be from no source or beginning. Rather, He is the beginning and source of all things. Moreover, the Son does nothing of His own will, nor does He do anything of His own determination. Likewise, He does not come from Himself, but obeys all His Father’s commands and precepts. So, although birth proves Him to be a Son, yet obedience even to death declares Him to be the Servant of the will of His Father, of whom He is. . . . He is indeed proved to be the Son of His Father. But He is found to be both Lord and God of all else. All things are put under Him and delivered to Him. For He is God, and all things are subjected to Him. Nevertheless, the Son refers all that He has received to the Father. He remits again to the Father the whole authority of His divinity. The true and eternal Father is manifested as the one God, from whom alone this power of divinity is sent forth. . . . So reasonably, God the Father is God of all. And He is the source, also, of His Son Himself, whom He begot as Lord. Moreover, the Son is God of all else, because God the Father put Him whom He begot over all.
Novatian (c. 235, W), 5.644.
There are two types of formative power. . . . The one works by itself whatever it chooses . . . by its bare will, without delay, as soon as it wills. This is the power of the Father. The other [type of power] adorns and embellishes the things that already exist, by imitation of the first. This is the power of the Son, who is the Almighty and Powerful hand of the Father. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.381, as quoted by Photius.
We must say that the Beginning, out of which the most upright Word came forth, is the Father and Maker of all things, in whom He was. And the words, “the same was in the beginning with God,” seem to indicate the position of authority of the Word, which He had with the Father before the world came into existence. “Beginning” signifies His power. And so, after the unique unbeginning Beginning, who is the Father, He is the Beginning of other things, by whom all things are made. Methodius (c. 290, E), 6.381, as quoted by Photius.
Someone may perhaps ask how we say that we worship only one God. For we declare that there are two—God the Father and God the Son. This declaration has driven many into the greatest error. . . . When we speak of God the Father and God the Son, we do not speak of them as different, nor do we separate them. Because the Father cannot exist without the Son, nor can the Son be separated from the Father. That is because the name of Father cannot be applied without the Son. Nor can the Son be begotten without the Father. Since, therefore, the Father makes the Son, and the Son the Father, they both have one mind, one spirit, one substance. However, the Father is, as it were, an overflowing fountain. The Son is, as it were, a stream flowing forth from it. The Father is as the sun; the Son is, as it were, a ray extended from the sun. And since the Son is both faithful to the Most High Father and beloved by Him, He is not separated from Him. Just as the stream is not separated from the fountain, nor the ray from the sun. For the water of the fountain is in the stream, and the light of the sun is in the ray. Similarly, the voice cannot be separated from the mouth, nor the strength or hand from the body. So, when He is also spoken of by the prophets as the Hand, the Strength, and Word of God, there is plainly no separation. . . .
We may use an example more closely connected with us. Suppose someone has a son whom he especially loves—who is still in the house and in the power of his father. Now although the father may give to him the name and power of a master, by civil law, the house is one. Only one person is called master. Likewise, this world is the one house of God. And the Son and the Father, who unanimously inhabit the world, are one God. For the one is as two and the two are as one. Nor is that unbelievable, for the Son is in the Father, as the Father loves the Son. And the Father is in the Son, for the Son faithfully obeys the will of the Father. He has never done, nor will He do, anything other than what the Father either willed or commanded. So the Father and the Son are but one God. . . . For there is one God alone—free, Most High, without any origin. For He Himself is the origin of all things. And in Him both the Son and all things are contained. Therefore, since the mind and will of the one is in the other—or rather, since there is one in both—both are justly called one God. For whatever is in the Father flows on to the Son. And whatever is in the Son descends from the Father. Accordingly, that Highest and Matchless God cannot be worshipped except through the Son. He who thinks that he worships only the Father, and will not worship the Son—he does not even worship the Father. However, he who receives the Son and bears His name—he truly worships the Father together with the Son. For the Son is the Ambassador, Messenger, and Priest of the Most High Father. Lactantius (c. 304–313, W), 7.132, 133.
The following two quotations are from Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, who was the primary opponent of Arius leading up to the Council of Nicaea.
He is equally with the Father unchangeable and immutable, lacking in nothing. He is the perfect Son, and, as we have learned, He is like the Father. In this alone is He inferior to the Father: that He is not unbegotten. For He is the very exact image of the Father and differs from Him in nothing. . . . But let no one take the word “always” in a manner that raises suspicion that He is unbegotten. . . . For neither are the words, “he was,” “always,” or “before all worlds,” equivalent to unbegotten. For the human mind cannot use any synonyms to signify “unbegotten.” . . . For these words do not at all signify unbegotten. Rather, these words seem to denote simply a lengthening out of time. Still, they cannot properly signify the divinity and antiquity of the Only-Begotten. Nevertheless, they have been used by holy men, while each according to his capacity—seeks to express this mystery, asking patience from the hearers and pleading a reasonable excuse, in saying, “This is as far as we can come.” . . .
In short, whatever word we use is not equivalent to “unbegotten.” Therefore, to the Unbegotten Father, indeed, we should preserve His proper dignity, in confessing that no one is the cause of His being. However, to the Son must be also given His fitting honor, in assigning to Him . . . a generation from the Father without beginning and assigning worship to Him. . . . We by no means reject His Godhood, but ascribe to him a likeness that exactly answers in every respect to the image and example of the Father. Still, we must say that to the Father alone belongs the property of being unbegotten. For the Savior Himself said, “My Father is greater than I.” Alexander of
Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.294, 295.
Concerning Him, we believe in this manner, even as the apostolic church believes: In one Father, unbegotten, who has the cause of His being from no one, who is unchangeable and immutable. He is always the same and can have no increase or diminution. He gave the Law to us, the Prophets, and the Gospels. He is Lord of the patriarchs, apostles, and all the saints. And we believe in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Only-Begotten Son of God. He is not begotten of things that are not, but of him who is the Father. Alexander of Alexandria (c. 324, E), 6.295.
Further Reading
Comments