birth. 266.

It was a complaint of the Jews that the Lord was

considered to be the Son of the God over all. These men also
object to those who truly make the sue confession about him.
The Jews thought they were honouring the God of the universe by
excluding the Son from like honour . These also bestow the same
on the One over all, bestowing honour on the Father by talling
away the glory of the Lord.
XXII,267-294 One ought not to attribute greater and less to the
divine being; including an elaborated statement of Church doctrine
267. It would be impossible to give a proper account of the extent and nature of the other features of their violence done to
the the Onlybegotten. Having first invented an activity preceding
the hypostas1s of Christ, they call him a or. and an
something the Jews have to this day never dared to do. Next they
circumscribe the nature of the Lord, enclosing him within certain
limits of the power that made him, delimiting him with a measure,
to wit the size of the activity that brought him into existence,
enclosed on every hand by the tunic of the activity thought up by
them. We cannot accuse the Jews of that. 268. Next they Cp.1051
envisage a shortage for the being in terms of lessening, in some
way using their own power of comprehension to measure what has
no quantity or size, and managing to discover by what quantity
the Onlybegotten God falls short of completeness, for lack of
which he is considered smaller and incomplete.
In many other
instances they profess one thing openly while secretly arguing
another, 1333Ml thus making the confession of the Son and Holy
Spirit way of exercising their own malice. 269. Must they not
therefore be under more wretched judgment than the Jews, if the
doctrines they so openly argue are such as the Jews have never
dared? The one who lessens the being of the . Son and the Holy
Spirit might perhaps seem, if you just say or hear the words, to
be only slightly irreverent. But 1f the statement is carefully
inspected, he will be convicted of blasphemy at the capital point.
Let us approach the subject in this way: in order to teach and
clarify. the falsehood argued by my opponents, I hope I may be
pardoned if I proceed by stating our own position.
270. The most important distinction of all beings is that between
the intelligible and the sensible. The sensible nature is generally given the name "visible" by the Apostle <Col 1,16>. Because
every material body has colour, and because it is vision that
apprehends colour, he ignores such remaining qualities as substantially inhere, and uses for convenience the term referring to
visual
rce tion.
271. For the whole intelligible nature the
common name, used by the Apostle, is "the invisible" <Col 1,16>;
by removing the sensible apprehension Cp.1061 he leads the mind on
to the incorporeal and intelligible.
But reason divides the
meaning of this intelligible nature also into two. For logic perceives one kind as uncreated, the other as created, an uncreated
nature which makes the created, and a createa'!iifure which receives its cause and ability to exist from the uncreated. 272.
Among the sensible are all those things which we apprehend by the
74

bodily senses, with reference to which the differences of qualities admit consideration of more and less, since differences of
quantity and quality and other characteristics apply to them.
273 . As to the intelligible nature, the created one I mean, the
sort of principle of differentiation which was perceived in the
case of sensible things cannot operate, but another means is found
for indicating the difference between greater and less.
27( .
Because the fount and origin and supply of every good is
considered to be in the uncreated nature, and the whole creation
inclines towards the good, clasping at and partaking in the
supreme nature through sharing in the first good, it follows of
necessity that in proportion to their participation in the higher
things some receive 11 larger share and others 11 smaller according
to their freely exercised choice, and so more and less are known
in the creation proportionately to the desire of each . 275 . Since
the intelligible nature on the created side stands at _the border
between good things and their opposite, so as to be capable of
receiving either by inclining to those which it prefers, as Cp.1071
we learn from scripture, C336MJ there is room to speak of more
and less in the one who excels in virtue in proportion to his
rejection of the worse and approximation to the better. 276. The
uncreated nature is far away from such 11 distinction, inasmuch as
it does not have good as something acquired, nor does it receive
moral virtue into itself by participation in some higher moral
virtue, but because tt is by nature what goodness is in itself,
and is perceived as goodness, and is attested even by our opponents to be the fount of goodness, simple, uniform and uncompounded. 277 . It has a distinction of its own appropriate to the
majesty of its nature, not thought of in terms of more and less,
as Eunomius supposes; for one who lessens his conception of the
good in any member of the holy Trinity we believe in, will surely
be making out that some of the opposite state has been mixed in
in the case of the one who falls short in goodness, which it is
not pious to hold either about the Onlybegotten or about the Holy
Spirit . Rather, being thought of as in utter perfection and
incomprehensible transcendence, it possesses unconfused and clear
differentiation through the characteristics to be found in each of
the hypostases, being invariable in the common possession of
uncreatedness, and singular in the special characteristics of each.
278 . The particularity attributed to each of the hypostases
plainly and unambiguously distinguishes one from another. Thus
the Father is confessed to be uncreated and unbegot ten, for he is
neither begotten nor created . This uncreatedness therefore he has
in common with the Son and the Cp. 1081 Holy Spirit. But he is
both unbegotten and Father; this is personal and incommunicable,
and it is not perceived in either of the others . 279. The Son is
connected to the Father and the Spirit in uncreatedness, but has
his individuation in being and being called Son and Onlybegot ten,
which does not belong the God over all or of the Spirit. The Holy
Spirit, who has 11 share with the Father and the Son in the
uncreated nature, is again distinguished from them by recognisable
features . His feature and mark is quite uniquely to be none of
those things which reason envisaged as peculiar to the Father and

75

the Son.
280. To be neither unbegotten nor onlybegotten, but
certainly to be, provides his special personal difference from the
others mentioned. Connected with the Father in uncreatedness, he
is conversely separated from the Father by not being. Father as he
is. His connexion with the Son in uncreatedness is not continued
when it comes to the personal characteristic, since he did not
come to be onlybegotten from the Father and has been Cp.1091
manifested through the Son himself.
Again, since the creation
came to exist through the Onlybegotten, lest the Spirit be thought
to have anything in common with it because he was manifested
through the Son, the Spirit is distinguished from the creation by
changelessness and immutability and independence of outside goodness. Creation C337MJ does not have changelessness in its nature,
as Scripture says when it relates the fall of Lucifer <Is 14,12>,
of which the Lord also speaks when he tells mysteries to his
disciples: "I saw Satan fallen as lightning from the sky" <Lk
10,18>. What separates him from the creation is the same as what
unites him intimately to the Father and the Son. In the case of
those whose nature admits nothing bad one and the same account
must be given of changelessness and immutability.
282. After these preliminary remarks it is now perhaps time to
examine our opponents account . In his artful statement about the
Son and the Holy Spirit he says, Necessity requires that the
beings are greater and lesser. Let us enquire by what logic he
arrives at the necessity of such a difference, whether some
material comparison has been made between things measured against
each other, or whether it is conceived in terms of the intelligible
as one exceeds or falls short in virtue, or whether it is in the
being itself. 283. In the case of being however it has been shown
by those who are skilled in such philosophy that no difference can
be predicated, if one examines it by itself in accordance with its
own Cp.1101 principle of being, stripped bare of the qualities and
characteristics attributed to it. To conceive such a distinction
in connexion with the Onlybegotten and the Spirit in terms of
success or failure of virtue, and consequently to suppose that the
nature of each of them is necessarily defectible, equally
receptive of opposites and lying on the boundary between good and
its opposite, is utterly profane . 284. One who says this will be
arguing that it is one thing in its own proper definition, and
becomes something else by participation in good and evil. Thus
with iron it happens that, if it associates for a long time with
fire, it takes on the quality of heat, while remaining iron, but if
it gets into snow or ice, it changes its quality towards the prevailing influence, taking the cold of the snow into its own
intimate parts.
285. Therefore , just as we do not give the material the name of
the quality
to the iron, for we do not call something
fire or water because it has been affected by one of these, so if
it be gnnted that, as the impious argue , in the case of the
lifegiving power goodness does not essentially inhere in it, but
that it is acquired by participation, it will no longer have the
right to be called by the title the gqod , but such an understanding will demand some other conception, such that goodness is

76

not attributed to it eternally, nor is it intrinsically understood

to possess the nature of goodness, but that the good sometimes is
not in it and sometimes will not be. 266. If good things come to
be by participation in wh.a t is better, then clearly before their
participation they were not such; and if when they were something
else they Cp.111 340MJ were tinged with the presence of good, then
surely if they are deprived of it, they will be reckoned someth.ing
other than the good. And if this is maintained, the divine nature
will be understood as not so much a provider of good things as
itself in need of a benefactor. 267. How can one provide another
with what it does not itself possess?
If then it has it perfectly, we shall envisage no falling short in perfection, and it is
vain to argue for what is less 1n what is perfect . If on the
other hand participation in the good is deemed imperfect in them
and in this respect they speak of the less, observe the consequence , that the one in this condition will not be benefactor to
what is inferior, but will make efforts to fill up what it itself
lacks.
Thus according to them the doctrine of providence is
false, as are those of providence, of judgment, of the dispensation, and of all the things which are held to have been done by
the Onlybegotten and to be done eternally by him, since he is
apparently busy attending to his own goodness and neglects the
government of the universe.
288 , If this idea were to prevail, that the Lord is not perfect in
every good, it is not diff,icult to see where the blasphemy ends
up . Truly the faith of such persons is vain , empty their preaching, insubstantial their hopes, whose substance comes with faith .
Why are they baptized into Christ, who has no power of goodness
of his own? - far be it from me to utter such blasphemy. 289.
And why do they believe in the Holy Spirit, 1f they think the same
things about him? How can Cp .1 121 they after their mortal birth be
born again by baptism, when on their view even the power that
gives them rebirth does not possess indefectibility and selfsufficiency?
How is the body of their humiliation transformed
<Phil 3,2]), when they think that the one who transforms is himself in need of change for the better, wanting yet another to
transform even him? 290 . As long as he is in the lesser state,
since from the goodness of hfs nature the superior naturally
implants in those inferior a ceaseless attraction to himself, the
longing for the more will never stop, but as desire continually
stretches out to what is not yet achieved, what is less will
always desire what is more, and will continually be changed into
what is greater, and will never reach perfection, since it will
never get to the end, by embracing which it will cease its ascent .
291. Since the First Good is infinite by nature, the participation
of the one which enjoys it must also perforce be infinite, ever
apprehending more, and always discovering what exceeds the
apprehended, and never able to draw level with it, since neither
can what is shared be fathomed , nor can what grows by participation desist .
292 . C341MJ Such ere the blasphemies which arise from the
argument based on distinctions of goodness.
But 1f they apply

77

ore and less to them in terms of corporeal concepts, Cp.113J the

absurdity of the argument is at once generally granted, even
without precise exa11ination of the detail.
On this theory it
inevitably follows that qualities and dimensions, weights and
shapes, and all those things which together make up the account
of a physical object, should be included in the divine nature. And
where composition is alleged, there surely it must be conceded
there is dissolution of the composite.
293 . These and similar
things are established by the doctrinal absurdity, which dares to
allege lesser and superior in the sizeless and inco11parable, as
our account has indicated by taking some of the many points; it
would be difficult to expose here all the guile hidden in the doctrine. But even a few statements will equally well demonstrate
the absurdity of what is claimed in the sequence of blasphemy.
XXIII,294-316 Tb& teaching of the faith is not unattested, being
supported by scriptural testhlonies
294. It is for us now to proceed with the next stage of the argument, after some slight further definitions have been added in
support of our doctrine. Since the divine testimony is a sure test
of truth in any doctrine, I think it would be as well also to confirm our word too with the words of God.
295. We know these differences in the distinction of beings, first
the one which 1s first in our apprehension, I mean the sensible,
and next the one perceived by the mind through the leading of
sensible things, which we say is intelligible. We also accepted
another further distinction of the intelligible , which divides it
into created and uncreated.
We decided that the Holy Trinity
belongs to the uncreated nature, and whatever is mentioned, exists
and Cp.1141 has a n1111e besides the Trinity belongs to the created.
296. So that our definition may not stand unsupported, but secured
by the testimonies of Scripture, we shall add one thing to what
has been said: that the Lord was not created, but came forth from
the Father, as the Divine Word himself in person attests in the
Gospel (Jn 8,24; 16,27; 17,8), by that ineffable and inexplicable
manner of his birth or coming-forth.
297. What truer witness
could be found than the voice of the Lord, who throughout the
Gospel calls his own true Father "Father" and not "Creator", and
refers to himself not as "work of God" but as "Son of God"? 298 .
Just as, in order to indicate his fleshly participation in the
human, he used the title "Son of Man" for the visible, showing the
natural affinity of his flesh with that from which 1t was taken,
so he points out by the title "Son" his true and genuine relation
to the God of the universe, using the word "Son" to point to the
natural intimacy. If some, C344MJ to refute the truth , put forward
barely and without interpretation the things from the proverbial
saying which are darkly and enigmatically expressed in a parable,
and avail the11Selves of the expression about being created, which
the proverb- writer put into the mouth of Wisdom, in support of
the perversity of their doctrine, saying that ''The Lord created
11e CProv 8 ,22 > is 11 confession that the Lord is created, since the
Onlybegotten by this expression did not reject such 11 thing, we

78