Passages similar to: The Three Principles of the Divine Essence — Chapter 1: Of the first Principle of the Divine Essence.
Source passage
Christian Mysticism
The Three Principles of the Divine Essence
Chapter 1: Of the first Principle of the Divine Essence. (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.
Neither can I declare it unto thee in any other manner; for I must write as if the generating or geniture of God had or took a beginning when things...
(34) Neither can I declare it unto thee in any other manner; for I must write as if the generating or geniture of God had or took a beginning when things came to be thus; but I write here very, really true and precious dear words, which the spirit alone understands. Now observe the Gates of God.
Chapter 11: Of the Seventh Qualifying or Fountain Spirit in the Divine Power. (13)
Therefore it has a beginning in man, but none in God; and therefore I must also write in a creaturely manner, or else thou canst not understand it.
(13) Therefore it has a beginning in man, but none in God; and therefore I must also write in a creaturely manner, or else thou canst not understand it.
In short, I would have you to understand, that God (in so far as He is good) is goodness as goodness, and not this or that good. But here mark one...
(32) In short, I would have you to understand, that God (in so far as He is good) is goodness as goodness, and not this or that good. But here mark one thing. Behold! what is sometimes here and sometimes there is not everywhere, and above all things and places; so also, what is to-day, or to-morrow, is not always, at all times, and above all time; and what is some thing, this or that, is not all things and above all things. Now behold, if God were some thing, this or that, He would not be all in all, and above all, as He is; and so also, He would not be true Perfection. Therefore God is, and yet He is neither this nor that which the creature, as creature, can perceive, name, conceive or express. Therefore if God (in so far as He is good) were this or that good, He would not be all good, and therefore He would not be the One Perfect Good, which He is. Now God is also a Light and a Reason,40 the property of which is to give light and shine, and take knowledge; and inasmuch as God is Light and Reason, He must give light and perceive. And all this giving and perceiving of light existeth in God without the creature; not as a work fulfilled, but as a substance or well-spring. But for it to flow out into a work, something really done and accomplished,41 there must be creatures through whom this can come to pass.
Thou must not here think that God has made some new thing, which never was before; for if that were so, then there had been another God, which is not...
(12) Thou must not here think that God has made some new thing, which never was before; for if that were so, then there had been another God, which is not possible to be. For without or besides this one only God, nothing is at all, for the gates of hell are not anywhere without, beyond or absent from this one only God; only, there is a partition or distinction between the love in the light, and the kindled wrath in the darkness, so that the one cannot comprehend the other, and yet the one hangeth to the other as one body.
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 an...
(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.