14. Now first, I ask, what is the meaning of these terms, ‘true God’ and ‘not true God’? If any one says to me ‘This is fire, but not true fire; water, but not true water,’ I can attach no intelligible meaning to his words. What difference in kind can there be between one true specimen, and another true specimen, of the same class? If a thing be fire, it must be true fire; while its nature remains the same it cannot lose this character of true fire. Deprive water of its watery nature, and by so doing you destroy it as true water; let it remain water, and it will inevitably still be true water. The only way in which an object can lose its nature is by losing its existence; if it continue to exist it must be truly itself. If the Son of God is God, then He is true God; if He is not true God, then in no possible sense is He God at all. If He has not the nature, then He has no right to the name; if, on the contrary, the name which indicates the nature is His by inherent right, then it cannot be that He is destitute of that nature in its truest sense.

14. Qui Deus est, Deus verus est.---Et primum quaero, quid significationis habeat Deus verus et non Deus verus? non enim verbi hujus apprehendo 0137B rationem, si dicatur mihi, Ignis est, sed non est verus ignis; aut aqua est, sed non est vera aqua: et quaero, in quo ejusdem generis veritas a generis ejusdem veritate dissentiat? Quod enim ignis est, non potest esse ne verus sit: nec natura manens eo potest carere quod vera est. Perime aquae, quod aqua est: et per id poteris abolere ne vera sit. Caeterum si aqua maneat, etiam in eo necesse est persistat ut vera sit. Potest ita demum natura perire, si non sit: verum non potest non vera esse, si maneat. Aut Deus verus est filius Dei, ut Deus sit; aut si non est verus Deus, non potest etiam id esse quod Deus est: quia si natura non sit, naturae non competit nomen; si autem naturae in eo nomen est, non potest ab eo veritas abesse naturae.