Chapter I.

The Arian argument from S. Mark x. 18, “There is none good but one, that is, God,” refuted by explanation of these words of Christ.

15. The objection I have now to face, your sacred Majesty, fills me with bewilderment, my soul and body faint at the thought that there should be men, or rather not men, but beings with the outward appearance of men, but inwardly full of brutish folly—who can, after receiving at the hands of the Lord benefits so many and so great, say that the Author of all good things is Himself not good.

16. It is written, say they, that “There is none good but God alone.” I acknowledge the Scripture—but there is no falsehood in the letter; would that there were none in the Arians’ exposition thereof. The written signs are guiltless, it is the meaning in which they are taken261    “Sensus in crimine.” The “sense of a passage” is not something in the passage itself so much as our understanding of it. In other words, the genitive after “sense” is objective, not possessive. that is to blame. I acknowledge the words as the words of our Lord and Saviour—but let us bethink ourselves when, to whom, and with what comprehension He speaks.

17. The Son of God is certainly speaking as man, and speaking to a scribe,—to him, that is, who called the Son of God “Good Master,” but would not acknowledge Him as God. What he believes not, Christ further gives him to understand, to the end that he may believe in God’s Son not as a good master, but as the good God, for if, wheresoever the “One God” is named, the Son of God is never sundered from the fulness of that unity, how, when God alone is said to be good, can the Only-begotten be excluded from the fulness of Divine Goodness? The Arians must therefore either deny that the Son of God is God, or confess that God is good.

18. With divinely inspired comprehension, then, our Lord said, not “There is none good but the Father alone,” but “There is none good but God alone,” and “Father” is the proper name of Him Who begets. But the unity of God by no means excludes the Godhead of the Three Persons, and therefore it is His Nature that is extolled. Goodness, therefore, is of the nature of God, and in the nature of God, again, exists the Son of God—wherefore that which the predicate expresses belongs not to one single Person, but to the [complete] unity [of the Godhead].262    Lat.—“non quod singularitatis, sed quod unitatis est, prædicatur.” The Son is “in the nature of God” inasmuch as the eternal Fatherhood of God implies an Eternal Son—His eternal Love an eternal object of that Love.

19. The Lord, then, doth not deny His goodness—He rebukes this sort of disciple. For when the scribe said, “Good Master,” the Lord answered, “Why callest thou Me good?”—which is to say, “It is not enough to call Him good, Whom thou believest not to be God.” Not such do I seek to be My disciples—men who rather consider My manhood and reckon Me a good master, than look to My Godhead and believe Me to be the good God.

CAPUT PRIMUM.

Arianorum Dei Filio bonitatem abrogantium objectionem non sine horrore propositam ut solvat, Christi sententiam ex personis loquentium, nec non ex ipsis dictionibus explicat.

0563A

15. Stupeo itaque ad reliqua, sancte imperator, et toto corpore animoque deficio, esse aliquos homines, vel potius non homines, sed humana adopertos specie, intus autem dementiae bestialis; qui post tanta Domini et tam divina beneficia, bonum negent ipsum auctorem bonorum.

16. Scriptum est, inquiunt: Nemo bonus, nisi unus Deus. Scriptum agnosco: sed littera errorem non habet; utinam Ariana interpretatio non haberet! 0563B Apices sine crimine sunt, sensus in crimine. Dictum Domini Salvatoris agnosco: 474 sed consideremus quando dicat, cui dicat, qua circumspectione dicat.

17. Dicit utique in hominis forma Dei Filius, et dicit Scribae, ei scilicet qui magistrum bonum Dei Filium nominaret, Deum negaret. Quod ille non credit, Christus adjungit; ut Dei Filium non ut bonum magistrum, sed ut bonum Deum credat. Nam sicubi unus Deus dicitur, nequaquam tamen Dei Filius ab unitatis plenitudine separatur; quomodo ubi unus Deus bonus nuncupatur, a plenitudine divinae bonitatis unigenitus excluditur? Necesse est igitur aut Deum negent Dei Filium, aut Deum bonum esse fateantur.

0563C 18. Et ideo circumspectione coelesti non dixit: Nemo bonus, nisi unus Pater; sed: Nemo bonus, nisi unus Deus. Pater enim proprium generantis est nomen, Deus autem unus nequaquam deitatem Trinitatis excludit, et ideo natura laudatur. Bonitas ergo in natura est Dei, et in natura Dei etiam Dei Filius; et ideo non quod singularitatis, sed quod unitatis est, praedicatur.

19. Non igitur a Domino bonitas negatur, sed talis discipulus refutatur. Nam cum scriba dixisset: Magister bone, respondit Dominus: Quid me dicis bonum (Mare., X, 28)? id est, quem Deum non credis, non est satis ut bonum dicas. Non tales ego quaero discipulos, qui me magis secundum hominem 0564A magistrum bonum, quam secundum divinitatem Deum bonum credant.