(1) He existed before anything other than himself came into being. The Father is a single one, like a number, for he is the first one and the one who is only himself. Yet he is not like a solitary individual. Otherwise, how could he be a father? For whenever there is a "father," the name "son" follows. But the single one, who alone is the Father, is like a root, with tree, branches and fruit. It is said of him that he is a father in the proper sense, since he is inimitable and immutable. Because of this, he is single in the proper sense, and is a god, because no one is a god for him nor is anyone a father to him. For he is unbegotten, and there is no other who begot him, nor another who created him. For whoever is someone's father or his creator, he, too, has a father and creator. It is certainly possible for him to be father and creator of the one who came into being from him and the one whom he created, for he is not a father in the proper sense, nor a god, because he has someone who begot him and who created him. It is, then, only the Father and God in the proper sense that no one else begot. As for the Totalities, he is the one who begot them and created them. He is without beginning and without end.

(25) "Other than the Eternal Parent there was Naught, either Real or Apparent." Here, again, we have a self-evident truth. There can have been no other Real being—no "other" to the Infinite and Absolute Reality—for the predicate of Infinity and Absoluteness carries with it the implicit predicate of Aloneness, Oneness, and Uniqueness. There can be no "other" Real being to Infinite Reality. And, in the absence of Manifestation, there can have been no Apparent (i.e., manifested or "created" Thing or Things) Thing in existence in the period of the Infinite Unmanifestation. There is no logical escape from this conclusion.

(1) Anything existing after The First must necessarily arise from that First, whether immediately or as tracing back to it through intervenients; there must be an order of secondaries and tertiaries, in which any second is to be referred to The First, any third to the second.

Standing before all things, there must exist a Simplex, differing from all its sequel, self-gathered not inter-blended with the forms that rise from it, and yet able in some mode of its own to be present to those others: it must be authentically a unity, not merely something elaborated into unity and so in reality no more than unity's counterfeit; it will debar all telling and knowing except that it may be described as transcending Being- for if there were nothing outside all alliance and compromise, nothing authentically one, there would be no Source. Untouched by multiplicity, it will be wholly self-sufficing, an absolute First, whereas any not-first demands its earlier, and any non-simplex needs the simplicities within itself as the very foundations of its composite existence.

There can be only one such being: if there were another, the two would resolve into one, for we are not dealing with two corporal entities.

Our One-First is not a body: a body is not simplex and, as a thing of process cannot be a First, the Source cannot be a thing of generation: only a principle outside of body, and utterly untouched by multiplicity, could be The First.

Any unity, then, later than The First must be no longer simplex; it can be no more than a unity in diversity.

Whence must such a sequent arise?

It must be an offspring of The First; for suppose it the product of chance, that First ceases to be the Principle of All.

But how does it arise from The First?

If The First is perfect, utterly perfect above all, and is the beginning of all power, it must be the most powerful of all that is, and all other powers must act in some partial imitation of it. Now other beings, coming to perfection, are observed to generate; they are unable to remain self-closed; they produce: and this is true not merely of beings endowed with will, but of growing things where there is no will; even lifeless objects impart something of themselves, as far as they may; fire warms, snow chills, drugs have their own outgoing efficacy; all things to the utmost of their power imitate the Source in some operation tending to eternity and to service.

How then could the most perfect remain self-set- the First Good, the Power towards all, how could it grudge or be powerless to give of itself, and how at that would it still be the Source?

If things other than itself are to exist, things dependent upon it for their reality, it must produce since there is no other source. And further this engendering principle must be the very highest in worth; and its immediate offspring, its secondary, must be the best of all that follows.

(20) The First Aphorism finally states: "The Eternal Parent, causeless, indivisible, changeless, infinite, rested in unconscious, dreamless, sleep. Other than the Eternal Parent there was Naught, either Real or Apparent." That the Eternal Parent is Causeless is a self-evident fact, for there is nothing which could have caused the Eternal and Original Being, from which all Manifestation proceeds. That which is Eternal must, of necessity, be Causeless. That which is Infinite, can have no Other which could have caused it. And it could not have been caused from or by Nothing, for "from Nothing, nothing comes." That the Eternal Parent is Indivisible is likewise self-evident, for anything that can be divided or separated into parts or particles, must in the first place be originally composed of parts or particles. And anything that is composed of parts or particles must be merely a Composition, an Aggregate, a Collection, or Crowd of such parts and particles, and, therefore, not a Real Entity or Unity at all. Moreover, that which is Infinite cannot become divided or separated into parts or particles without losing its essential Infinity—a divided Infinite is no Infinite at all, but merely a Collection or Crowd of Finite Things. Absolute Indivisibility must be predicated of True Unity and Infinite Being. There is no logical escape from this conclusion.

(11) But this Unoriginating, what is it?

We can but withdraw, silent, hopeless, and search no further. What can we look for when we have reached the furthest? Every enquiry aims at a first and, that attained, rests.

Besides, we must remember that all questioning deals with the nature of a thing, its quality, its cause or its essential being. In this case the being- in so far as we can use the word- is knowable only by its sequents: the question as to cause asks for a principle beyond, but the principle of all has no principle; the question as to quality would be looking for an attribute in that which has none: the question as to nature shows only that we must ask nothing about it but merely take it into the mind if we may, with the knowledge gained that nothing can be permissibly connected with it.

The difficulty this Principle presents to our mind in so far as we can approach to conception of it may be exhibited thus:

We begin by posing space, a place, a Chaos; into this existing container, real or fancied, we introduce God and proceed to enquire: we ask, for example, whence and how He comes to be there: we investigate the presence and quality of this new-comer projected into the midst of things here from some height or depth. But the difficulty disappears if we eliminate all space before we attempt to conceive God: He must not be set in anything either as enthroned in eternal immanence or as having made some entry into things: He is to be conceived as existing alone, in that existence which the necessity of discussion forces us to attribute to Him, with space and all the rest as later than Him- space latest of all. Thus we conceive as far as we may, the spaceless; we abolish the notion of any environment: we circumscribe Him within no limit; we attribute no extension to Him; He has no quality since no shape, even shape Intellectual; He holds no relationship but exists in and for Himself before anything is.

How can we think any longer of that "Thus He happened to be"? How make this one assertion of Him of whom all other assertion can be no more than negation? It is on the contrary nearer the truth to say "Thus He has happened not to be": that contains at least the utter denial of his happening.

(65) Only the birth therein is thus, and so the one generateth the other, in and through itself, and the birth lasteth or continueth thus from eternity to eternity.

(63) For because Man was to be eternal, therefore he must also come to be out of the Eternal; for nothing is created out of the Fountain of the Heart of God. For that is the End of Nature, and has no such Essences; no comprehensible [or palpable] Thing enters therein; otherwise it would be a Filling and Darkness, and that cannot be: Also from Eternity, there has been nothing else but only the Source [or working Property] where the Deity continually rises up, as is mentioned before.

(106) Thearidas, in his book On Nature, writes: "There was then one really true beginning [first principle] of all that exists - one. For that Being in the beginning is one and alone." "Nor is there any other except the Great King," says Orpheus. In accordance with whom, the comic poet Diphilus says very sententiously, the, "Father of all, To Him alone incessant reverence pay, The inventor and the author of such blessings."

(4) Now this cannot be expressed or described, nor brought to the Understanding by the Tongue of Man; for God has no Beginning. But I will set it down so as if he had a Beginning, that it might be understood what is in the first Principle, whereby the difference between the first and second Principle may be understood, and what God or Spirit is. Indeed there is no difference in God, only when it is enquired from whence Evil and Good proceed, it is to be known, what is the first and original fountain of Anger, and also of Love, since they both proceed from one and the same Original, out of one Mother, and are one Thing. Thus we must speak after a creaturely Manner, as if it took a Beginning, that it might be brought to be understood.

(12) For as nature, with the working, wrestling and rising up of its birth or geniture, stood in the time of the kindling, just such a matter attracted itself together. Now it may be asked, How then is a comprehensible or palpable son come to be out of an incomprehensible mother? Answer.

(44) Seeing, now that we can find nothing in all Nature, of which we may say, This is God, or here is God, from whence we might conclude, that God might be some strange Thing; and seeing himself witnesses, that his is the Kingdom and the Power from Eternity to Eternity; and that he calls himself Father, (and the Son is begotten out of the Loins of his Father,) therefore we must seek for him in the Original, a in the Principle out of which the World was generated and created in the Beginning; and we can say no otherwise, but that the first Principle is God the Father himself.

(3) Tat: Thou sayest things impossible, O father, things that are forced. Hence answers would I have direct unto these things. Am I a son strange to my father's race? Keep it not, father, back from me. I am a true-born son; explain to me the manner of Rebirth. Hermes: What may I say, my son? I can but tell thee this. Whene'er I see within myself the Simple Vision brought to birth out of God's mercy, I have passed through myself into a Body that can never die. And now i am not as I was before; but I am born in Mind. The way to do this is not taught, and it cannot be seen by the compounded element by means of which thou seest. Yea, I have had my former composed form dismembered for me. I am no longer touched, but I have touch; I have dimension too; and [yet] am I a stranger to them now. Thou seest me with eyes, my son; but what I am thou dost not understand [even] with fullest strain of body and of sight.

(55) The Father is the one only being, who himself is ALL, who from eternity continually generateth his heartily beloved Son; and in both of them the Holy Ghost is continually standing in the flash, wherein the life is generated.

(16) How then, O son, could there be in the God, the image of the Father, in the plenitude of Life - dead things? For that death is corruption, and corruption destruction. How then could any part of that which knoweth no corruption be corrupted, or any whit of him the God destroyed? Tat: Do they not, then, my father, die - the lives in it, that are its parts? Hermes: Hush, son! - led into error by the term in use for what takes place. They do not die, my son, but are dissolved as compound bodies. Now dissolution is not death, but dissolution of a compound; it is dissolved not so that it may be destroyed, but that it may become renewed. For what is the activity of life? Is it not motion? What then in Cosmos is there that hath no motion? Naught is there, son!

(8) But as I was in great astonishment, He saith to me again: Thou didst behold in Mind the Archetypal Form whose being is before beginning without end. Thus spake to me Man-Shepherd. And I say: Whence then have Nature's elements their being? To this He answer gives: From Will of God. [Nature] received the Word (Logos), and gazing upon the Cosmos Beautiful did copy it, making herself into a cosmos, by means of her own elements and by the births of souls.

(2) For truly first of all, eternal and transcending birth, is God the universals' Maker. Second is he "after His image", Cosmos, brought into being by Him, sustained and fed by Him, made deathless, as by his own Sire, living for aye, as ever free from death. Now that which ever-liveth, differs from the Eternal; for He hath not been brought to being by another, and even if He have been brought to being, He hath not been brought to being by Himself, but ever is brought into being. For the Eternal, in that It is eternal, is the all. The Father is Himself eternal of Himself, but Cosmos hath become eternal and immortal by the Father.

(37) For if it were so, then must the Son of God have a beginning, and the Father must have generated him in time, and then he could not be the eternal, almighty Son of the Father; but the Son would be like a king, who had yet a greater king above him, who had generated him in time, and in whose power it was to alter and change him.

(3) They were forever in thought, for the Father was like a thought and a place for them. When their generations had been established, the one who is completely in control wished to lay hold of and to bring forth that which was deficient in the [...] and he brought forth those [...] him. But since he is as he is, he is a spring, which is not diminished by the water which abundantly flows from it. While they were in the Father's thought, that is, in the hidden depth, the depth knew them, but they were unable to know the depth in which they were; nor was it possible for them to know themselves, nor for them to know anything else. That is, they were with the Father; they did not exist for themselves. Rather, they only had existence in the manner of a seed, so that it has been discovered that they existed like a fetus. Like the word he begot them, subsisting spermatically, and the ones whom he was to beget had not yet come into being from him. The one who first thought of them, the Father, - not only so that they might exist for him, but also that they might exist for themselves as well, that they might then exist in his thought as mental substance and that they might exist for themselves too, - sowed a thought like a spermatic seed. Now, in order that they might know what exists for them, he graciously granted the initial form, while in order that they might recognize who is the Father who exists for them, he gave them the name "Father" by means of a voice proclaiming to them that what exists, exists through that name, which they have by virtue of the fact that they came into being, because the exaltation, which has escaped their notice, is in the name.

(8) And before anything came into being, it was the Father alone who existed, before the worlds that are in the heavens appeared, or the world that is on the earth, or principality, or authority, or the powers. [...] appear [...] and [...] And nothing came into being without his wish.

(3) Now ope thine eyes to what I answer thee, And thou shalt see thy creed and my discourse Fit in the truth as centre in a circle. That which can die, and that which dieth not, Are nothing but the splendour of the idea Which by his love our Lord brings into being; Because that living Light, which from its fount Effulgent flows, so that it disunites not From Him nor from the Love in them intrined, Through its own goodness reunites its rays In nine subsistences, as in a mirror, Itself eternally remaining One. Thence it descends to the last potencies, Downward from act to act becoming such That only brief contingencies it makes; And these contingencies I hold to be Things generated, which the heaven produces By its own motion, with seed and without. Neither their wax, nor that which tempers it, Remains immutable, and hence beneath The ideal signet more and less shines through; Therefore it happens, that the selfsame tree After its kind bears worse and better fruit, And ye are born with characters diverse.