Chapter I.

 1. Your desire for information, my right well-beloved and most deeply respected brother Amphilochius, I highly commend, and not less your industrious

 2. If “To the fool on his asking for wisdom, wisdom shall be reckoned,” at how high a price shall we value “the wise hearer” who is quoted by the Prop

 3. Lately when praying with the people, and using the full doxology to God the Father in both forms, at one time “  with  the Son  together with   thr

 Chapter II.

 4. The petty exactitude of these men about syllables and words is not, as might be supposed, simple and straightforward nor is the mischief to which

 Chapter III.

 5. They have, however, been led into this error by their close study of heathen writers, who have respectively applied the terms “  of  whom” and “  t

 Chapter IV.

 6. We acknowledge that the word of truth has in many places made use of these expressions yet we absolutely deny that the freedom of the Spirit is in

 Chapter V.

 7. After thus describing the outcome of our adversaries’ arguments, we shall now proceed to shew, as we have proposed, that the Father does not first

 8. But if our adversaries oppose this our interpretation, what argument will save them from being caught in their own trap?

 9. In his Epistle to the Ephesians the apostle says, “But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Chri

 10. It must now be pointed out that the phrase “through whom” is admitted by Scripture in the case of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost

 11. In the same manner it may also be said of the word “in,” that Scripture admits its use in the case of God the Father. In the Old Testament it is s

 12. And it is not only in the case of the theology that the use of the terms varies, but whenever one of the terms takes the meaning of the other we f

 Chapter VI.

 13. Our opponents, while they thus artfully and perversely encounter our argument, cannot even have recourse to the plea of ignorance. It is obvious t

 14. Let us first ask them this question: In what sense do they say that the Son is “after the Father ” later in time, or in order, or in dignity? But

 15. If they really conceive of a kind of degradation of the Son in relation to the Father, as though He were in a lower place, so that the Father sits

 Chapter VII.

 16. But their contention is that to use the phrase “with him” is altogether strange and unusual, while “through him” is at once most familiar in Holy

 Chapter VIII.

 17. When, then, the apostle “thanks God through Jesus Christ,” and again says that “through Him” we have “received grace and apostleship for obedience

 18. For “through Him” comes every succour to our souls, and it is in accordance with each kind of care that an appropriate title has been devised. So

 19. It will follow that we should next in order point out the character of the provision of blessings bestowed on us by the Father “through him.” Inas

 20. When then He says, “I have not spoken of myself,” and again, “As the Father said unto me, so I speak,”

 21. “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father not the express image, nor yet the form, for the divine nature does not admit of combination but the

 Chapter IX.

 22. Let us now investigate what are our common conceptions concerning the Spirit, as well those which have been gathered by us from Holy Scripture con

 23. Now the Spirit is not brought into intimate association with the soul by local approximation. How indeed could there be a corporeal approach to th

 Chapter X.

 24. But we must proceed to attack our opponents, in the endeavour to confute those “oppositions” advanced against us which are derived from “knowledge

 25. But all the apparatus of war has been got ready against us every intellectual missile is aimed at us and now blasphemers’ tongues shoot and hit

 26. Whence is it that we are Christians? Through our faith, would be the universal answer. And in what way are we saved? Plainly because we were regen

 Chapter XI.

 27. “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow?” For whom is distress and darkness? For whom eternal doom? Is it not for the transgressors? For them that deny the

 Chapter XII.

 28. Let no one be misled by the fact of the apostle’s frequently omitting the name of the Father and of the Holy Spirit when making mention of baptism

 Chapter XIII.

 29. It is, however, objected that other beings which are enumerated with the Father and the Son are certainly not always glorified together with them.

 30. And not only Paul, but generally all those to whom is committed any ministry of the word, never cease from testifying, but call heaven and earth t

 Chapter XIV.

 31. But even if some are baptized unto the Spirit, it is not, it is urged, on this account right for the Spirit to be ranked with God. Some “were bapt

 32. What then? Because they were typically baptized unto Moses, is the grace of baptism therefore small? Were it so, and if we were in each case to pr

 33. But belief in Moses not only does not show our belief in the Spirit to be worthless, but, if we adopt our opponents’ line of argument, it rather w

 Chapter XV.

 34. What more? Verily, our opponents are well equipped with arguments. We are baptized, they urge, into water, and of course we shall not honour the w

 35. The dispensation of our God and Saviour concerning man is a recall from the fall and a return from the alienation caused by disobedience to close

 36. Through the Holy Spirit comes our restoration to paradise, our ascension into the kingdom of heaven, our return to the adoption of sons, our liber

 Chapter XVI.

 37. Let us then revert to the point raised from the outset, that in all things the Holy Spirit is inseparable and wholly incapable of being parted fro

 38. Moreover, from the things created at the beginning may be learnt the fellowship of the Spirit with the Father and the Son. The pure, intelligent,

 39. But when we speak of the dispensations made for man by our great God and Saviour Jesus Christ, who will gainsay their having been accomplished thr

 40. Moreover by any one who carefully uses his reason it will be found that even at the moment of the expected appearance of the Lord from heaven the

 Chapter XVII.

 41. What, however, they call sub-numeration, and in what sense they use this word, cannot even be imagined without difficulty. It is well known that i

 42. What is it that they maintain? Look at the terms of their imposture. “We assert that connumeration is appropriate to subjects of equal dignity, an

 43. Do you maintain that the Son is numbered under the Father, and the Spirit under the Son, or do you confine your sub-numeration to the Spirit alone

 Chapter XVIII.

 44. In delivering the formula of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, our Lord did not connect the gift with number. He did not say “into First, S

 45. For we do not count by way of addition, gradually making increase from unity to multitude, and saying one, two, and three,—nor yet first, second,

 46. And it is not from this source alone that our proofs of the natural communion are derived, but from the fact that He is moreover said to be “of Go

 47. And when, by means of the power that enlightens us, we fix our eyes on the beauty of the image of the invisible God, and through the image are led

 Chapter XIX.

 48. “Be it so,” it is rejoined, “but glory is by no means so absolutely due to the Spirit as to require His exaltation by us in doxologies.” Whence th

 49. And His operations, what are they? For majesty ineffable, and for numbers innumerable. How shall we form a conception of what extends beyond the a

 50. But, it is said that “He maketh intercession for us.” It follows then that, as the suppliant is inferior to the benefactor, so far is the Spirit i

 Chapter XX.

 51. He is not a slave, it is said not a master, but free. Oh the terrible insensibility, the pitiable audacity, of them that maintain this! Shall I r

 Chapter XXI.

 52. But why get an unfair victory for our argument by fighting over these undignified questions, when it is within our power to prove that the excelle

 Chapter XXII.

 53. Moreover the surpassing excellence of the nature of the Spirit is to be learned not only from His having the same title as the Father and the Son,

 Chapter XXIII.

 54. Now of the rest of the Powers each is believed to be in a circumscribed place. The angel who stood by Cornelius

 Chapter XXIV.

 55. Furthermore man is “crowned with glory and honour,” and “glory, honour and peace” are laid up by promise “to every man that worketh good.”

 56. Let us then examine the points one by one. He is good by nature, in the same way as the Father is good, and the Son is good the creature on the o

 57. Now it is urged that the Spirit is in us as a gift from God, and that the gift is not reverenced with the same honour as that which is attributed

 Chapter XXV.

 58. It is, however, asked by our opponents, how it is that Scripture nowhere describes the Spirit as glorified together with the Father and the Son, b

 59. As we find both expressions in use among the faithful, we use both in the belief that full glory is equally given to the Spirit by both. The mout

 60. As compared with “  in  ,” there is this difference, that while “  with   in   with   in   and   in   in 

 Chapter XXVI.

 61. Now, short and simple as this utterance is, it appears to me, as I consider it, that its meanings are many and various. For of the senses in which

 62. It is an extraordinary statement, but it is none the less true, that the Spirit is frequently spoken of as the  place  of them that are being sanc

 63. In relation to the originate, then, the Spirit is said to  be in   be in   be with   with   in   with   in 

 64. Another sense may however be given to the phrase, that just as the Father is seen in the Son, so is the Son in the Spirit. The “worship in the Spi

 Chapter XXVII.

 65. The word “  in,  ” say our opponents, “is exactly appropriate to the Spirit, and sufficient for every thought concerning Him. Why then, they ask,

 66. Of the beliefs and practices whether generally accepted or publicly enjoined which are preserved in the Church  first   one 

 67. Time will fail me if I attempt to recount the unwritten mysteries of the Church. Of the rest I say nothing but of the very confession of our fait

 68. The force of both expressions has now been explained. I will proceed to state once more wherein they agree and wherein they differ from one anothe

 Chapter XXVIII.

 69. But let us see if we can bethink us of any defence of this usage of our fathers for they who first originated the expression are more open to bla

 70. I am ashamed to add the rest. You expect to be glorified together with Christ (“if so be that we suffer with him that we may be also glorified to

 Chapter XXIX.

 71. In answer to the objection that the doxology in the form “with the Spirit” has no written authority, we maintain that if there is no other instanc

 72. There is the famous Irenæus, and Clement of Rome  in   with   carnal 

 73. Origen, too, in many of his expositions of the Psalms, we find using the form of doxology “  with  the Holy Ghost.” The opinions which he held con

 74. But where shall I rank the great Gregory, and the words uttered by him? Shall we not place among Apostles and Prophets a man who walked by the sam

 75. How then can I be an innovator and creator of new terms, when I adduce as originators and champions of the word whole nations, cities, custom goin

 Chapter XXX.

 76. To what then shall I liken our present condition? It may be compared, I think, to some naval battle which has arisen out of time old quarrels, and

 77. Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality. Did it not at one time appear that the Arian schism, after its separat

 78. So, since no human voice is strong enough to be heard in such a disturbance, I reckon silence more profitable than speech, for if there is any tru

 79. For all these reasons I ought to have kept silence, but I was drawn in the other direction by love, which “seeketh not her own,” and desires to ov

77. Turn now I beg you from this figurative description to the unhappy reality. Did it not at one time  1  i.e. after the condemnation of Arius at Nicæa. appear that the Arian schism, after its separation into a sect opposed to the Church of God, stood itself alone in hostile array? But when the attitude of our foes against us was changed from one of long standing and bitter strife to one of open warfare, then, as is well known, the war was split up in more ways than I can tell into many subdivisions, so that all men were stirred to a state of inveterate hatred alike by common party spirit and individual suspicion.  2  In Ep. ccxlii. written in 376, St. Basil says: “This is the thirteenth year since the outbreak of the war of heretics against us.” 363 is the date of the Acacian Council of Antioch; 364 of the accession of Valens and Valentian, of the Semi-Arian Synod of Lampsacus, and of St. Basil’s ordination to the priesthood and book against Eunomius. On the propagation by scission and innumerable subdivisions of Arianism Cannon Bright writes: The extraordinary versatility, the argumentative subtlety, and the too frequent profanity of Arianism are matters of which a few lines can give no idea. But it is necessary, in even the briefest notice of this long-lived heresy, to remark on the contrast between its changeable inventiveness and the simple steadfastness of Catholic doctrine. On the one side, some twenty different creeds (of which several, however, were rather negatively than positively heterodox) and three main sects, the Semi-Arians, with their formula of Homoiousion, i.e. the Son is like in essence to the Father; the Acacians, vaguely calling Him like (Homoion); the Aetians, boldly calling Him unlike, as much as to say He is in no sense Divine. On the other side, the Church with the Nicene Creed, confessing Him as Homoousion, ‘of one essence with the Father,’ meaning thereby, as her great champion repeatedly bore witness, to secure belief in the reality of the Divine Sonship, and therefore in the real Deity, as distinguished from the titular deity which was so freely conceded to Him by the Arians.” Cannon Bright, St. Leo on the Incarnation, p. 140 Socrates (ii. 41), pausing at 360, enumerates, after Nicæa: 1. 1st of Antioch (omitted the ὁμοούσιον, a.d. 341). 2. 2d of Antioch (omitted the ὁμοούσιον, a.d. 341). 3. The Creed brought to Constans in Gaul by Narcissus and other Arians in 342. 4. The Creed “sent by Eudoxius of Germanicia into Italy,” i.e. the “Macrostich,” or “Lengthy Creed,” rejected at Milan in 346. 5. The 1st Creed of Sirmium; i.e. the Macrostich with 26 additional clauses, 351. 6. The 2d Sirmian Creed. The “manifesto;” called by Athanasius (De Synod. 28) “the blasphemy,” 357. 7. The 3d Sirmian, or “dated Creed,” in the consulship of Flavius Eusebius and Hypatius, May 22d, 359. 8. The Acacian Creed of Seleucia, 359. 9. The Creed of Ariminum adopted at Constantinople, as revised at Nike. But what storm at sea was ever so fierce and wild as this tempest of the Churches? In it every landmark of the Fathers has been moved; every foundation, every bulwark of opinion has been shaken: everything buoyed up on the unsound is dashed about and shaken down. We attack one another. We are overthrown by one another. If our enemy is not the first to strike us, we are wounded by the comrade at our side. If a foeman is stricken and falls, his fellow soldier tramples him down. There is at least this bond of union between us that we hate our common foes, but no sooner have the enemy gone by than we find enemies in one another. And who could make a complete list of all the wrecks? Some have gone to the bottom on the attack of the enemy, some through the unsuspected treachery of their allies, some from the blundering of their own officers. We see, as it were, whole churches, crews and all, dashed and shattered upon the sunken reefs of disingenuous heresy, while others of the enemies of the Spirit  3  On the authority of the ms. of the tenth century at Paris, called by the Ben. Editors Regius Secundus, they read for πνεύματος πάθους, denying πνευματος to be consistent with the style and practice of Basil, who they say, never uses the epithet σωτήοιος of the Spirit. Mr. C.F.H. Johnston notes that St. Basil “always attributes the saving efficacy of Baptism to the presence of the Spirit, and here applies the word to Him.” In § 35, we have τὸ σωτήριον βάπτισυα. of Salvation have seized the helm and made shipwreck of the faith.  4  1 Tim. i. 19. And then the disturbances wrought by the princes of the world  5  1 Cor. ii. 6. have caused the downfall of the people with a violence unmatched by that of hurricane or whirlwind. The luminaries of the world, which God set to give light to the souls of the people, have been driven from their homes, and a darkness verily gloomy and disheartening has settled on the Churches.  6  Among the bishops exiled during the persecution of Valens were Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, and Barses of Edessa. cf. Theodoret, Hist. Ecc. iv. 12 sq. cf. Ep. 195. The terror of universal ruin is already imminent, and yet their mutual rivalry is so unbounded as to blunt all sense of danger. Individual hatred is of more importance than the general and common warfare, for men by whom the immediate gratification of ambition is esteemed more highly than the rewards that await us in a time to come, prefer the glory of getting the better of their opponents to securing the common welfare of mankind. So all men alike, each as best he can, lift the hand of murder against one another. Harsh rises the cry of the combatants encountering one another in dispute; already all the Church is almost full of the inarticulate screams, the unintelligible noises, rising from the ceaseless agitations that divert the right rule of the doctrine of true religion, now in the direction of excess, now in that of defect. On the one hand are they who confound the Persons and are carried away into Judaism;  7  The identification of an unsound Monarchianism with Judaism is illustrated in the 1st Apology of Justin Martyr, e.g. in § lxxxiii. (Reeves’ Trans.). “The Jews, therefore, for maintaining that it was the Father of the Universe who had the conference with Moses, when it was the very Son of God who had it, and who is styled both Angel and Apostle, are justly accused by the prophetic spirit and Christ Himself, for knowing neither the Father nor the Son; for they who affirm the Son to be the Father are guilty of not knowing the Father, and likewise of being ignorant that the Father of the Universe has a Son, who, being the Logos and First-begotten of God, is God.” on the other hand are they that, through the opposition of the natures, pass into heathenism.  8  i.e. the Arians, whose various ramifications all originated in a probably well-meant attempt to reconcile the principles of Christianity with what was best in the old philosophy, and a failure to see that the ditheism of Arianism was of a piece with polytheism. Between these opposite parties inspired Scripture is powerless to mediate; the traditions of the apostles cannot suggest terms of arbitration. Plain speaking is fatal to friendship, and disagreement in opinion all the ground that is wanted for a quarrel. No oaths of confederacy are so efficacious in keeping men true to sedition as their likeness in error. Every one is a theologue though he have his soul branded with more spots than can be counted. The result is that innovators find a plentiful supply of men ripe for faction, while self-appointed scions of the house of place-hunters  9  The word σπουδαρχίδης is a comic patronymic of σπουδάρχης, a place-hunter, occurring in the Acharnians of Aristophanes, 595. reject the government  10  οἰκονομία. of the Holy Spirit and divide the chief dignities of the Churches. The institutions of the Gospel have now everywhere been thrown into confusion by want of discipline; there is an indescribable pushing for the chief places while every self-advertiser tries to force himself into high office. The result of this lust for ordering is that our people are in a state of wild confusion for lack of being ordered;  11  ἀναρχία ἀπὸ φιλαρχίας. the exhortations of those in authority are rendered wholly purposeless and void, because there is not a man but, out of his ignorant impudence, thinks that it is just as much his duty to give orders to other people, as it is to obey any one else.

1 i.e. after the condemnation of Arius at Nicæa.
2 In Ep. ccxlii. written in 376, St. Basil says: “This is the thirteenth year since the outbreak of the war of heretics against us.” 363 is the date of the Acacian Council of Antioch; 364 of the accession of Valens and Valentian, of the Semi-Arian Synod of Lampsacus, and of St. Basil’s ordination to the priesthood and book against Eunomius. On the propagation by scission and innumerable subdivisions of Arianism Cannon Bright writes: The extraordinary versatility, the argumentative subtlety, and the too frequent profanity of Arianism are matters of which a few lines can give no idea. But it is necessary, in even the briefest notice of this long-lived heresy, to remark on the contrast between its changeable inventiveness and the simple steadfastness of Catholic doctrine. On the one side, some twenty different creeds (of which several, however, were rather negatively than positively heterodox) and three main sects, the Semi-Arians, with their formula of Homoiousion, i.e. the Son is like in essence to the Father; the Acacians, vaguely calling Him like (Homoion); the Aetians, boldly calling Him unlike, as much as to say He is in no sense Divine. On the other side, the Church with the Nicene Creed, confessing Him as Homoousion, ‘of one essence with the Father,’ meaning thereby, as her great champion repeatedly bore witness, to secure belief in the reality of the Divine Sonship, and therefore in the real Deity, as distinguished from the titular deity which was so freely conceded to Him by the Arians.” Cannon Bright, St. Leo on the Incarnation, p. 140 Socrates (ii. 41), pausing at 360, enumerates, after Nicæa: 1. 1st of Antioch (omitted the ὁμοούσιον, a.d. 341). 2. 2d of Antioch (omitted the ὁμοούσιον, a.d. 341). 3. The Creed brought to Constans in Gaul by Narcissus and other Arians in 342. 4. The Creed “sent by Eudoxius of Germanicia into Italy,” i.e. the “Macrostich,” or “Lengthy Creed,” rejected at Milan in 346. 5. The 1st Creed of Sirmium; i.e. the Macrostich with 26 additional clauses, 351. 6. The 2d Sirmian Creed. The “manifesto;” called by Athanasius (De Synod. 28) “the blasphemy,” 357. 7. The 3d Sirmian, or “dated Creed,” in the consulship of Flavius Eusebius and Hypatius, May 22d, 359. 8. The Acacian Creed of Seleucia, 359. 9. The Creed of Ariminum adopted at Constantinople, as revised at Nike.
3 On the authority of the ms. of the tenth century at Paris, called by the Ben. Editors Regius Secundus, they read for πνεύματος πάθους, denying πνευματος to be consistent with the style and practice of Basil, who they say, never uses the epithet σωτήοιος of the Spirit. Mr. C.F.H. Johnston notes that St. Basil “always attributes the saving efficacy of Baptism to the presence of the Spirit, and here applies the word to Him.” In § 35, we have τὸ σωτήριον βάπτισυα.
4 1 Tim. i. 19.
5 1 Cor. ii. 6.
6 Among the bishops exiled during the persecution of Valens were Meletius of Antioch, Eusebius of Samosata, Pelagius of Laodicea, and Barses of Edessa. cf. Theodoret, Hist. Ecc. iv. 12 sq. cf. Ep. 195.
7 The identification of an unsound Monarchianism with Judaism is illustrated in the 1st Apology of Justin Martyr, e.g. in § lxxxiii. (Reeves’ Trans.). “The Jews, therefore, for maintaining that it was the Father of the Universe who had the conference with Moses, when it was the very Son of God who had it, and who is styled both Angel and Apostle, are justly accused by the prophetic spirit and Christ Himself, for knowing neither the Father nor the Son; for they who affirm the Son to be the Father are guilty of not knowing the Father, and likewise of being ignorant that the Father of the Universe has a Son, who, being the Logos and First-begotten of God, is God.”
8 i.e. the Arians, whose various ramifications all originated in a probably well-meant attempt to reconcile the principles of Christianity with what was best in the old philosophy, and a failure to see that the ditheism of Arianism was of a piece with polytheism.
9 The word σπουδαρχίδης is a comic patronymic of σπουδάρχης, a place-hunter, occurring in the Acharnians of Aristophanes, 595.
10 οἰκονομία.
11 ἀναρχία ἀπὸ φιλαρχίας.

[77] Μετάβα δή μοι ἀπὸ τῆς εἰκόνος ἐπ' αὐτὸ τοῦ κακοῦ τὸ ἀρχέτυπον. Οὐχὶ πάλαι μέν πως ἐδόκει τὸ Ἀρειανὸν σχίσμα εἰς ἀντίπαλον μοῖραν ἀποκριθὲν τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἐν πολεμίων τάξει αὐτὸ καθ' ἑαυτὸ μόνον ἀντικαθέζεσθαι; Ὅτε δὲ ἐκ τῆς μακρᾶς καὶ χαλεπῆς ἔριδος εἰς προφανῆ ἡμῖν ἀγῶνα ἀντικατέστησαν, τότε δὴ εἰς πολλὰ μέρη κατὰ μυρίους τρόπους ὁ πόλεμος διεσχίσθη: ὥστε καὶ διὰ τὸ κοινὸν ἔχθος, καὶ διὰ τὸ ἰδίως ὕποπτον, ἀδιάλλακτον πᾶσιν ὑπάρχειν τὸ μῖσος. Ὁ δὲ σάλος οὗτος τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τίνος οὐκ ἔστι θαλασσίου κλύδωνος ἀγριώτερος; ἐν ᾧ πᾶν μὲν ὅριον πατέρων κεκίνηται: πᾶς δὲ θεμέλιος, καὶ εἴ τι ὀχύρωμα δογμάτων διασεσάλευται. Κλονεῖται δὲ πάντα καὶ κατασείεται σαθρᾷ τῇ βάσει ἐπαιωρούμενα: ἀλλήλοις δὲ ἐμπίπτοντες, ὑπ' ἀλλήλων ἀνατρεπόμεθα. Κἂν μὴ φθάσῃ βαλὼν ὁ πολέμιος, ὁ παραστάτης ἔτρωσε. Κἂν πέσῃ βληθείς, ὁ συνασπιστὴς ἐπενέβη. Τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλοις κοινωνοῦμεν, ὅσον κοινῇ τοὺς ἐναντίους μισεῖν. Ἐπειδὰν δὲ παρέλθωσιν οἱ πολέμιοι, ἀλλήλους ἤδη βλέπομεν πολεμίους. Ἐπὶ τούτοις, τῶν ναυαγίων τὸ πλῆθος τίς ἂν ἐξαριθμήσαιτο; τῶν μὲν ἐκ τῆς τῶν πολεμίων προσβολῆς καταδύντων, τῶν δὲ ἐκ τῆς λαθραίας τῶν συμμαχούντων ἐπιβουλῆς, ἄλλων ἐκ τῆς ἀπειρίας τῶν εὐθυνόντων: ὅπου γε αὔτανδροι ἐκκλησίαι, οἷον ὑφάλοις τισὶ τοῖς αἱρετικοῖς δόλοις προσαραχθεῖσαι διεφθάρησαν, ἄλλοι δὲ τῶν ἐχθρῶν τοῦ σωτηρίου πάθους, παραλαβόντες τοὺς οἴακας, περὶ τὴν πίστιν ἐναυάγησαν. Αἱ δὲ ἐκ τῶν ἀρχόντων τοῦ κόσμου τούτου ἐπαγόμεναι ταραχαὶ ποίας οὐχὶ θυέλλης καὶ καταιγίδος σφοδρότερον τοὺς λαοὺς ἀνατρέπουσι; Κατηφὴς δέ τις ὄντως καὶ στυγνὴ σκοτόμαινα τὰς ἐκκλησίας ἐπέχει, τῶν λαμπτήρων τοῦ κόσμου, οὓς ἔθετο ὁ Θεὸς τὰς ψυχὰς τῶν λαῶν φωτίζειν, ἐξοικισθέντων. Τὸ δὲ ὑπερβάλλον αὐτοῖς τῆς πρὸς ἀλλήλους φιλονεικίας, ἐπικρεμαμένου ἤδη τοῦ φόβου τῆς τοῦ παντὸς διαλύσεως, παραιτεῖται τὴν αἴσθησιν. Τοῦ γὰρ κοινοῦ καὶ δημοσίου πολέμου πλεῖόν ἐστι τὸ ἴδιον δυσμενές, τῆς ἐκ τοῦ κρατῆσαι τῶν ἐναντίων δόξης τοῦ κοινῶς πᾶσι λυσιτελοῦντος προτιθεμένης, οἷς τὸ παραυτίκα τῆς φιλοτιμίας τερπνὸν τῶν εἰς ὕστερον ἀποκειμένων μισθῶν προτιμότερον. Διόπερ πάντες ὁμοίως, καθ' ὃν ἂν ἕκαστος δύνηται τρόπον, τὰς φονικὰς χεῖρας ἀλλήλοις ἀντεπιφέρουσι. Τραχεῖα δέ τις κραυγὴ τῶν ἐξ ἀντιλογίας παρατριβομένων ἀλλήλοις, καὶ βοὴ ἄσημος, καὶ δύσκριτος ἦχος ἐκ τῶν ἀσιγήτων θορύβων, πᾶσαν ἤδη σχεδὸν Ἐκκλησίαν πεπλήρωκεν, ἐπὶ ὑπερβολὰς καὶ ἐλλείψεις τὸ εὐθὲς δόγμα τῆς εὐσεβείας παρατρεπόντων. Οἱ μὲν γὰρ ἐπὶ Ἰουδαϊσμὸν διὰ τῆς συγχύσεως τῶν προσώπων, οἱ δὲ ἐπὶ Ἑλληνισμὸν διὰ τῆς τῶν φύσεων ἐναντιότητος παραφέρονται: οὔτε τῆς θεοπνεύστου Γραφῆς μεσιτεύειν αὐτοῖς ἐξαρκούσης, οὔτε τῶν ἀποστολικῶν παραδόσεων τὰς πρὸς ἀλλήλους αὐτοῖς διαλλαγὰς βραβευουσῶν. Εἷς δὲ ὅρος φιλίας, τὸ καθ' ἡδονὴν εἰπεῖν: καὶ ἔχθρας ἀρκοῦσα πρόφασις, τὸ μὴ συμβῆναι ταῖς δόξαις. Πάσης δὲ συνωμοσίας πιστότερον πρὸς κοινωνίαν στάσεως ἡ τοῦ σφάλματος ὁμοιότης. Θεολόγος δὲ πᾶς, καὶ ὁ μυρίαις κηλῖσι τὴν ψυχὴν στιγματίας. Ἐντεῦθεν τοῖς νεωτεροποιοῖς εὐπορία τῶν συστασιαζόντων πολλή. Τοιγαροῦν αὐτοχειροτόνητοι καὶ σπουδαρχίδαι τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τὰς προστασίας διαλαγχάνουσι, τὴν οἰκονομίαν τοῦ ἁγίου Πνεύματος παρωσάμενοι. Καὶ παντελῶς ἤδη τῶν εὐαγγελικῶν θεσμῶν ἐξ ἀκοσμίας συγκεχυμένων, ἀμύθητος ὠθισμὸς ἐπὶ τὰς προεδρίας ἐστί, τῶν φανητιώντων ἑκάστου ἑαυτὸν εἰσποιεῖν τῇ προστασίᾳ βιαζομένου. Ἀναρχία δέ τις δεινὴ ἀπὸ τῆς φιλαρχίας ταύτης τοῖς λαοῖς ἐπεκώμασεν: ὅθεν ἄπρακτοι παντελῶς καὶ ἀργαὶ τῶν ἐπιστατούντων αἱ παρακλήσεις, οὐ μᾶλλον ἀκούειν τινὸς ἢ αὐτῷ ἄρχειν ἑτέρων ὀφειλόμενον εἶναι ἑκάστου διὰ τὸν ἐξ ἀμαθίας τῦφον λογιζομένου.