1 (1) Pythagoras of Samos instructed the region of Italy once called ...

In the sun is a shimmering (whether it should be called a property or a quality), a power
and, as I would put it, the sun’s very life. In the sun a light is produced and, in a sense,
born from the shimmering. In it is a blaze that spreads and breathes out. I say the same
about all fire. (6) I shall not say in accord with this that the shimmering and life is like
the Father, the light like the Son and the blaze like the Holy Spirit, or that the Father is
divine power, the Son divine wisdom, the Holy Spirit divine love. But I shall add
essence and indeed relate it to the Father, so that now I may say not ‘the sun’s power and
life’ but ‘the powerful and living sun’; and then relate essence to the Son not as ‘the light
of the sun’ but as ‘the luminous sun’; and to the Holy Spirit not as ‘the blaze of the sun’
but as ‘the blazing sun.’ And the Father will be ‘powerful and living God,’ the Son ‘wise
God’ and the Holy Spirit ‘loving God.’
(7) From this it is clear why God is one though God is called three, and how God begat
God, as if there were a second God as the wicked believe. For even though the Father
generates light eternally, he still does not generate the essence which for him is one in
common with the Son and the Holy Spirit. (8) And unless I am mistaken, this is why the
Greeks talked about three hupostaseis, because beyond those three ‘properties’ (if one
must put it this way) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit lies something substantial that I
name ‘essence,’ assuming that it should be named in this way. 137 And essence is
something in things, an essence that those people sometimes call ‘subject,’ sometimes
‘substrate,’ sometimes ‘matter,’ though I could not really prove it to someone who denied
that it is there. 138 But if it is the case that the sun is just power, light and heat, likewise
God the Father will also be the power that generates God as light while breathing forth
God as love, who is the Holy Spirit.
(9) But perhaps it would have been better if those who do not even know the ratio of the
side of a square to the diameter had avoided this whole discussion of matter and form.
And it suits us no better since we find no meaning for such a thing either in the Old or in
the New Testament. Writing about the source of the Nile, Lucan was not off course:
You ask about things that the world works to make go, and yet,
whatever cause you say lies in these very numerous channels,
for me it’s always that the gods have willed them, far and wide. 139
So then, what God has willed to be hidden, let it be hidden, and let us not be so titanically
rash as Aristotle, who wished to seem ignorant of nothing, daring to climb up to heaven
and break in. (10) Enough about this, then: I have touched on these points so that the
terms ‘substance,’ ‘essence,’ ‘subject’ and ‘matter’ would give no one a chance to
quibble, especially when we speak about God. Other issues we shall pursue later.
137
Zippel cites Basil, De spiritu sancto 38 (PGM 32.150); Camporeale, Valla, pp. 243, 427; Z’s ed., pp.
393, 397.
138
Zippel cites Paul of Venice, Lib. met. 1, 32, in Sum. nat. (Venice: 1503, 92-3, 117-18).
139
Zippel cites Luc. Phars. 1.417-9, check trans. ???.
36
2/21/05 9:35 PM 36/44