Gregory of Nyssa

Since we recognize two natures in Christ, one divine and the other human, the divine by nature but the human in the incarnation, we accordingly claim for the Godhead that which is eternal, and that which is created we ascribe to his human nature. For as, according to the prophet, he was formed in the womb as a servant, so also, according to Solomon, he was manifested in the flesh by means of this servile creation. But when [the Arians] say, "If he was, he was not begotten, and, if he was begotten, he was not," let them learn that it is not fitting to ascribe to his divine nature the attributes which belong to his fleshly origin. For bodies that do not exist are generated, and God makes those things to be that are not. But does not he come into being from that which is not? For this reason also Paul calls him "the brightness of glory." He does this so that we may learn that, just as the light from the lamp is of the nature of that which sheds the brightness and is united with it (for as soon as the lamp appears the light that comes from it shines out simultaneously), in like manner the Son is related to the Father, and the Father is never without the Son. It is impossible that glory should be without radiance, as it is impossible that the lamp should be without brightness. It is clear that his being brightness is a testimony to his being in relation with the glory, for if the glory did not exist, the brightness shed from it would not exist. Therefore, to say that the brightness "once was not" is a declaration that once the glory also was not, that is, when the brightness was not, for it is impossible that the glory should be without the brightness. As therefore it is not possible to say in the case of the brightness, "If it was, it did not come into being, and, if it came into being, it was not," so it is in vain to say this of the Son, seeing that the Son is the brightness. Let those who speak of "less" and "greater," in the case of the Father and the Son, learn from Paul not to measure things immeasurable. For the apostle says that the Son is the express image of the person of the Father. It is clear then that, however great the person of the Father is, so great also is the express image of that person, for it is not possible that the express image should be less than the person contemplated in it. And this the great John also teaches when he says, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." For in saying that he was "in the beginning" and not "after the beginning," he showed that the beginning was never without the Word. In declaring that "the Word was with God," he signified the absence of defect in the Son in relation to the Father, for the Word is contemplated as a whole together with the whole being of God. For if the Word were deficient in his own greatness so as not to be capable of relation with the whole being of God, we are compelled to suppose that that part of God which extends beyond the Word is without the Word. But in fact the whole magnitude of the Word is contemplated together with the whole magnitude of God, and consequently, in statements concerning the divine nature, it is not admissible to speak of "greater" and "less."