§24. His elaborate account of degrees and differences in ‘works’ and ‘energies’ within the Trinity is absurd.

Now let us see what he adds, as the consequence of this. After saying that we must perforce regard the Being as greater and less and that while81    τὰς μὲν, i.e. Οὑσίος. Eunomius’ Arianism here degenerates into mere Emanationism: but even in this system the Substances were living: it is best on the whole to translate οὐσία ‘being,’ and this, as a rule, is adhered to throughout. the ones, by virtue of a pre-eminent magnitude and value, occupy a leading place, the others must be detruded to a lower place, because their nature and their value is secondary, he adds this; “their difference amounts to that existing between their works: it would in fact be impious to say that the same energy produced the angels or the stars, and the heavens or man; but one would positively maintain about this, that in proportion as some works are older and more honourable than others, so does one energy transcend another, because sameness of energy produces sameness of work, and difference of work indicates difference of energy.”

I suspect that their author himself would find it difficult to tell us what he meant when he wrote those words. Their thought is obscured by the rhetorical mud, which is so thick that one can hardly see beyond any clue to interpret them. “Their difference amounts to that existing between their works” is a sentence which might be suspected of coming from some Loxias of pagan story, mystifying his hearers. But if we may make a guess at the drift of his observations here by following out those which we have already examined, this would be his meaning, viz., that if we know the amount of difference between one work and another, we shall know the amount of that between the corresponding energies. But what “works” he here speaks of, it is impossible to discover from his words. If he means the works to be observed in the creation, I do not see how this hangs on to what goes before. For the question was about Father, Son, and Holy Ghost: what occasion was there, then, for one thinking rationally to inquire one after another into the nature of earth, and water, and air, and fire, and the different animals, and to distinguish some works as older and more honourable than others, and to speak of one energy as transcending another? But if he calls the Only-begotten and the Holy Spirit “works,” what does he mean by the “differences” of the energies which produce these works: and what are 82    κᾀκείναι αἱ ἐνεργείαι αὖται.those wonderful energies of this writer which transcend the others? He has neither explained the particular way in which he means them to “transcend” each other; nor has he discussed the nature of these energies: but he has advanced in neither direction, neither proving so far their real subsistence, nor their being some unsubstantial exertion of a will. Throughout it all his meaning hangs suspended between these two conceptions, and oscillates from one to the other. He adds that “it would be impious to say that the same energy produced the angels or the stars, and the heavens or man.” Again we ask what necessity there is to draw this conclusion from his previous remarks? I do not see that it is proved any more 83    τῷ παρηλλάχθαι, κ.τ.λ. This is Oehler’s emendation for the faulty reading τὸ of the editions.because the energies vary amongst themselves as much as the works do, and because the works are not all from the same source but are stated by him to come from different sources. As for the heavens and each angel, star, and man, or anything else understood by the word “creation,” we know from Scripture that they are all the work of One: whereas in their system of theology the Son and the Spirit are not the work of one and the same, the Son being the work of the energy which ‘follows’ the first Being, and the Spirit the further work of that work. What the connexion, then, is between that statement and the heavens, man, angel, star, which he drags in, must be revealed by himself, or some one whom he has initiated into his profound philosophy. The blasphemy intended by his words is plain enough, but the way the profanity is stated is inconsistent with itself. To suppose that within the Holy Trinity there is a difference as wide as that which we can observe between the heavens which envelope the whole creation, and one single man or the star which shines in them, is openly profane: but still the connexion of such thoughts and the pertinence of such a comparison is a mystery to me, and I suspect also to its author himself. If indeed his account of the creation were of this sort, viz., that while the heavens were the work of some transcendent energy each star in them was the result of an energy accompanying the heavens, and that then an angel was the result of that star, and a man of that angel, his argument would then have consisted in a comparison of similar processes, and might have somewhat confirmed his doctrine. But since he grants that it was all made by One (unless he wishes to contradict Scripture downright), while he describes the production of the Persons after a different fashion, what connexion is there between this newly imported view and what went before?

But let it be granted to him that this comparison does have some connexion with proving variation amongst the Beings (for this is what he desires to establish); still let us see how that which follows hangs on to what he has just said, ‘In proportion as one work is prior to another and more precious than it, so would a pious mind affirm that one energy transcends another.’ If in this he alludes to the sensible world, the statement is a long way from the matter in hand. There is no necessity whatever that requires one whose subject is theological to philosophize about the order in which the different results achieved in the world-making are to come, and to lay down that the energies of the Creator are higher and lower analogously to the magnitude of each thing then made. But if he speaks of the Persons themselves, and means by works that are ‘older and more honourable’ those ‘works’ which he has just fashioned in his own creed, that is, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, it would be perhaps better to pass over in silence such an abominable view, than to create even the appearance of its being an argument by entangling ourselves with it. For can a ‘more honourable’ be discovered where there is not a less honourable? If he can go so far, and with so light a heart, in profanity as to hint that the expression and the idea ‘less precious’ can be predicated of anything whatever which we believe of the Trinity, then it were well to stop our ears, and get as quickly as possible out of hearing of such wickedness, and the contagion of reasoning which will be transfused into the heart, as from a vessel full of uncleanness.

Can any one dare to speak of the divine and supreme Being in such a way that a less degree of honour in comparison is proved by the argument. “That all,” says the evangelist, “may honour the Son, as they honour the Father.84    John v. 23.” This utterance (and such an utterance is a law to us) makes a law of this equality in honour: yet this man annuls both the law and its Giver, and apportions to the One more, to the Other less of honour, by some occult method for measuring its extra abundance which he has discovered. By the custom of mankind the differences of worth are the measure of the amount of honour which each in authority receives; so that inferiors do not approach the lower magistracies in the same guise exactly as they do the sovereign, and the greater or less display of fear or reverence on their part indicates the greater or the less worshipfulness in the objects of it: in fact we may discover, in this disposition of inferiors, who are the specially honourable; when, for instance, we see some one feared beyond his neighbours, or the recipient of more reverence than the rest. But in the case of the divine nature, because every perfection in the way of goodness is connoted with the very name of God, we cannot discover, at all events as we look at it, any ground for degrees of honour. Where there is no greater and smaller in power, or glory, or wisdom, or love, or of any other imaginable good whatever, but the good which the Son has is the Father’s also, and all that is the Father’s is seen in the Son, what possible state of mind can induce us to show the more reverence in the case of the Father? If we think of royal power and worth the Son is King: if of a judge, ‘all judgment is committed to the Son85    John v. 22; i. 3.:’ if of the magnificent office of Creation, ‘all things were made by Him86    John v. 22; i. 3.:’ if of the Author of our life, we know the True Life came down as far as our nature: if of our being taken out of darkness, we know He is the True Light, who weans us from darkness: if wisdom is precious to any, Christ is God’s power and Wisdom87    1 Cor. i. 24. “Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.”.

Our very souls, then, being disposed so naturally and in proportion to their capacity, and yet so miraculously, to recognize so many and great wonders in Christ, what further excess of honour is left us to pay exclusively to the Father, as inappropriate to the Son? Human reverence of the Deity, looked at in its plainest meaning, is nothing else but an attitude of love towards Him, and a confession of the perfections in Him: and I think that the precept ‘so ought the Son to be honoured as the Father88    John v. 23. The Gospel enjoins honour and means love: the Law enjoins love and means honour.,’ is enjoined by the Word in place of love. For the Law commands that we pay to God this fitting honour by loving Him with all our heart and strength and here is the equivalent of that love, in that the Word as Lawgiver thus says, that the Son ought to be honoured as the Father.

It was this kind of honour that the great David fully paid, when he confessed to the Lord in a prelude89    a prelude. See Psalm vii. 1 and Psalm xviii. 1, “fortress,” κραταίωμα; στερέωμα, LXX. of his psalmody that he loved the Lord, and told all the reasons for his love, calling Him his “rock” and “fortress,” and “refuge,” and “deliverer,” and “God-helper,” and “hope,” and “buckler,” and “horn of salvation,” and “protector.” If the Only-begotten Son is not all these to mankind, let the excess of honour be reduced to this extent as this heresy dictates: but if we have always believed Him to be, and to be entitled to, all this and even more, and to be equal in every operation and conception of the good to the majesty of the Father’s goodness, how can it be pronounced consistent, either not to love such a character, or to slight it while we love it? No one can say that we ought to love Him with all our heart and strength, but to honour Him only with half. If, then, the Son is to be honoured with the whole heart in rendering to Him all our love, by what device can anything superior to His honour be discovered, when such a measure of honour is paid Him in the coin of love as our whole heart is capable of? Vainly, therefore, in the case of Beings essentially honourable, will any one dogmatize about a superior honour, and by comparison suggest an inferior honour.

Again; only in the case of the creation is it true to speak of ‘priority.’ The sequence of works was there displayed in the order of the days; and the heavens may be said to have preceded by so much the making of man, and that interval may be measured by the interval of days. But in the divine nature, which transcends all idea of time and surpasses all reach of thought, to talk of a “prior” and a “later” in the honours of time is a privilege only of this new-fangled philosophy. In short he who declares the Father to be ‘prior’ to the subsistence of the Son declares nothing short of this, viz., that the Son is later than the things made by the Son90    The meaning is that, if the Son is later (in time) than the Father, then time must have already existed for this comparison to be made; i.e. the Son is later than time as well as the Father. This involves a contradiction. (if at least it is true to say that all the ages, and all duration of time was created after the Son, and by the Son).

Τί τοίνυν προστίθησι τῇ ἀκολουθίᾳ τῶν εἰρημένων, σκοπήσωμεν. μετὰ τὸ εἰπεῖν: « ἐξ ἀνάγκης ἐλάττους τε καὶ μείζους τὰς οὐσίας οἴεσθαι δεῖν εἶναι καὶ τὰς μὲν πρώτην ἐπέχειν τάξιν κατά τινα μεγέθους καὶ ἀξίας διαφορὰν ἐν τῇ προτιμήσει τεταγμένας, τὰς δὲ ἐν δευτέροις διὰ τὸ ὑποβεβηκὸς τῆς φύσεώς τε καὶ τῆς ἀξίας ἀπεωσμένας », ταῦτα ἐπήγαγεν: « πρὸς τοσαύτην » φησὶν « ἐξικνεῖσθαι διαφοράν, πρὸς ὁπόσην ἂν ἐξικνῆται τὰ ἔργα, ἐπεὶ μηδὲ θεμιτὸν τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνέργειαν εἰπεῖν, καθ' ἣν τοὺς ἀγγέλους ἐποίησεν ἢ τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἢ τὸν ἄνθρωπον, ἀλλ' ὅσῳ τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἔργων πρεσβύτερα καὶ τιμιώτερα, τοσούτῳ καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς ἐνεργείας ἀναβεβηκέναι φαίη ἄν τις περὶ τούτου διαβεβαιούμενος, ἅτε δὴ τῶν αὐτῶν ἐνεργειῶν τὴν ταυτότητα τῶν ἔργων ἀποτελουσῶν καὶ τῶν παρηλλαγμένων ἔργων παρηλλαγμένας καὶ τὰς ἐνεργείας ἐμφαινόντων ».
Ταῦτα τοίνυν ἐγὼ μὲν ὑπολαμβάνω μηδὲ αὐτὸν τὸν συγγραφέα δύνασθαι ἂν εὐπόρως εἰπεῖν ὅ τι ποτὲ νοήσας συνέγραψεν: οὕτως ἀνατεθόλωται τῇ ἰλύϊ τῆς φράσεως ἡ διάνοια τῶν εἰρημένων, ὡς μηδένα ἂν διϊδεῖν εὐκόλως ἐν τῷ βορβόρῳ τῆς ἑρμηνείας δυνηθῆναι τὸ βούλημα. τὸ γὰρ « πρὸς τοσαύτην ἐξικνεῖσθαι διαφοράν », πρὸς « ὁπόσην ἂν ἐξικνῆται τὰ ἔργα », Λοξίου τινὸς κατὰ τὸν ἔξωθεν μῦθον ὑπονοήσειεν ἄν τις εἶναι πρὸς ἀπάτην τῶν ἀκουόντων φληναφουμένου. εἰ δὲ χρὴ τοῖς προεξητασμένοις ἑπόμενον καὶ τῶν ἐνταῦθα αὐτῷ κατασκευαζομένων στοχάζεσθαι, τοῦτό ἐστιν ὃ ἐνδείκνυται, ὅτι ὅση τῶν ἔργων ἡ πρὸς ἄλληλά ἐστι παραλλαγή, τοσαύτη καὶ τῶν ἐνεργειῶν ἡ διαφορὰ πρὸς ἀλλήλας ἐπιγνωσθήσεται. περὶ τίνων τοίνυν « ἔργων » ἐνταῦθα ποιεῖται τὸν λόγον, οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τῶν εἰρημένων εὑρεῖν. εἰ μὲν γὰρ περὶ τῶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει λέγει θεωρουμένων, οὐκ οἶδα ποίαν ἀκολουθίαν ἔχει ταῦτα πρὸς τὰ προάγοντα. τῆς γὰρ ζητήσεως περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος οὔσης, τίνα καιρὸν ἔχει γῆν καὶ ὕδωρ καὶ ἀέρα καὶ πῦρ καὶ τὰς τῶν ζῴων διαφορὰς φυσιολογεῖν καὶ διεξιέναι τῷ λόγῳ καὶ διαγράφειν « ἔργα ἔργων πρεσβύτερα καὶ τιμιώτερα καὶ ἐνέργειαν ἐνεργείας ἀναβεβηκέναι » λέγειν « εὐλόγως διανοούμενον »; εἰ δὲ τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν καὶ τὸ ἅγιον πνεῦμα προσαγορεύει τὰ « ἔργα », τίνας λέγει πάλιν τὰς τῶν ἐνεργειῶν διαφοράς, δι' ὧν τὰ ἔργα ταῦτα ἀποτελεῖται; τίνες δὲ κἀκεῖναι αὖ αἱ ἐνέργειαι αἱ τὰς ἐνεργείας ἀναβαίνουσαι; οὔτε γὰρ τὴν ἀνάβασιν ἣν « ἀναβαίνει », καθώς φησιν αὐτός, ἡ ἐνέργεια τὴν ἐνέργειαν, ὅ τι ποτὲ νοεῖ διεσάφησεν, οὔτε τι περὶ τῆς φύσεως τῶν ἐνεργειῶν διελέχθη, ἀλλ' ἐπ' οὐδενὸς μέχρι τοῦ νῦν βέβηκεν ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ, οὔτε τὸ οὐσιωδῶς ὑφεστάναι κατασκευάζων οὔτε θελήματός τινα κίνησιν ἀνυπόστατον ἐνδεικνύμενος. δι' ὅλου γὰρ ἡ διάνοια τῶν εἰρημένων ἐπὶ τοῦ μέσου τῶν ὑπολήψεων ῥιφεῖσα πρὸς ἑκατέρας τὰς ὑπονοίας μεταρριπίζεται.
Προστίθησι δὲ ὅτι « οὐδὲ θέμις τὴν αὐτὴν ἐνέργειαν εἰπεῖν καθ' ἣν τοὺς ἀγγέλους ἐποίησεν ἢ τοὺς ἀστέρας καὶ τὸν οὐρανὸν ἢ τὸν ἄνθρωπον ». πάλιν ταῦτα ἐκ ποίας ἀνάγκης ἢ ἀκολουθίας τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐπήγαγεν ἢ τί μᾶλλον διὰ τούτων κατασκευάζεται τὸ παρηλλάχθαι τὰς ἐνεργείας κατὰ τοσοῦτον ἀλλήλων, ὅση καὶ τῶν ἔργων ἐστὶν ἡ πρὸς ἄλληλα διαφορά, τῷ μὴ τοῦ αὐτοῦ τυγχάνειν ἔργα τὰ πάντα ἀλλ' ἕτερον ἐξ ἑτέρου γεγενῆσθαι κατασκευάζειν, ἐγὼ μὲν οὐ συνορῶ. οὐρανὸν γὰρ καὶ ἄγγελον καὶ ἀστέρα καὶ ἄνθρωπον καὶ πάντα, ὅσα ἐστὶν ἐν τῇ κτίσει νοούμενα, ἑνὸς ἔργα τὰ πάντα παρὰ τῆς γραφῆς μεμαθήκαμεν: ὁ δὲ τοῦ δόγματος αὐτῶν κατασκευάζει λόγος ὅτι οὐχ ἑνὸς ἔργα ὁ υἱὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα, ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν υἱὸς τῆς παρεπομένης τῇ πρώτῃ οὐσίᾳ ἐνεργείας ἔργον ἐστί, τὸ δὲ πνεῦμα τοῦ ἔργου πάλιν ἕτερον ἔργον. τίνα οὖν κοινωνίαν ἔχει πρὸς τὴν ἐκείνου κατασκευὴν οὐρανὸς καὶ ἄνθρωπος ἄγγελός τε καὶ ἀστὴρ νῦν συμπαραληφθέντες ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου, αὐτὸς εἰπάτω, ἢ εἴ τις τῆς ἀπορρήτου σοφίας αὐτοῦ κοινωνός ἐστιν. ἐν τούτοις γὰρ τὸ μὲν ἀσεβὲς φανερῶς τοῖς εἰρημένοις ἐμφαίνεται, ἡ δὲ τῆς ἀσεβείας κατασκευὴ καὶ πρὸς ἑαυτήν ἐστιν ἀσύμφωνος. τὸ μὲν γὰρ οἴεσθαι τοσαύτην ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τριάδι διαφορὰν θεωρεῖσθαι, ὅσην ἔστι κατανοῆσαι οὐρανοῦ τοῦ πᾶσαν τὴν κτίσιν ἐμπεριειληφότος πρὸς τὸν ἕνα τῷ ἀριθμῷ ἄνθρωπον ἢ ἀγγέλου πρὸς τὸν ἐν οὐρανῷ φαινόμενον ἀστέρα, φανερὰν τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἔχει: τὸ δὲ συντεταγμένον τῶν νοημάτων καὶ ἀκόλουθον τῆς περὶ αὐτὸ τοῦτο κατασκευῆς, τοῦτό φημι μήτε ἐμοὶ μήτε αὐτῷ τάχα τῷ πατρὶ τῆς βλασφημίας εὐσύνοπτον εἶναι. εἰ μὲν γὰρ τοιαῦτα περὶ τῆς κτίσεως ἐλογίζετο, ὅτι οὐρανὸς μὲν ἔργον ἐστὶν ὑπερκειμένης τινὸς ἐνεργείας, τῆς δὲ τῷ οὐρανῷ παρεπομένης ἐνεργείας ἀποτέλεσμα ὁ ἀστήρ, ἐκείνου δὲ ὁ ἄγγελος καὶ τούτου ὁ ἄνθρωπος, εἶχεν ἄν τι ὁ λόγος αὐτῷ, διὰ τῆς τῶν ὁμοίων παραθέσεως κατασκευάζων τὸ δόγμα. εἰ δὲ ταῦτα μὲν δι' ἑνὸς γεγενῆσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς συντίθεται (εἴ γε μὴ παντελῶς τῇ τῶν γραφῶν φωνῇ διαμάχεται), τῆς δὲ ἐκείνων κατασκευῆς ἕτερόν τινα διορίζεται τρόπον, τίς ἡ κοινωνία τῶν ἐπαχθέντων πρὸς τὰ προάγοντα;
Δεδόσθω δέ τι καὶ κοινὸν ἔχειν ταῦτα πρὸς ἀπόδειξιν τῆς τῶν οὐσιῶν παραλλαγῆς (ταῦτα γὰρ ἐπιθυμεῖ δι' ὧν λέγει κατασκευάζειν), ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐφεξῆς πῶς συνήρτησε τοῖς εἰρημένοις, ἀκούσωμεν. « ὅσῳ », φησί, « τὰ ἔργα τῶν ἔργων πρεσβύτερα καὶ τιμιώτερα, τοσούτῳ καὶ τὴν ἐνέργειαν τῆς ἐνεργείας ἀναβεβηκέναι φαίη ἄν τις εὐσεβῶς διανοούμενος ». ταῦτα γὰρ εἰ μὲν περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν λέγει, πόρρω τῶν προτεθέντων ἐστὶν ὁ λόγος. τίς γὰρ ἡ ἀνάγκη τὸν περὶ τῶν δογμάτων εἰπεῖν τι προθέμενον περὶ τῆς τάξεως τῶν ἐν τῇ κοσμογονίᾳ δημιουργηθέντων φιλοσοφεῖν καὶ ὑψηλοτέρας καὶ ὑφειμένας τὰς ἐνεργείας τοῦ κτίσαντος πρὸς λόγον τῆς ἑκάστου τῶν γεγονότων πηλικότητος εἶναι διϊσχυρίζεσθαι; εἰ δὲ περὶ ἐκείνων ποιεῖται τὸν λόγον καὶ « ἔργα ἔργων πρεσβύτερά τε καὶ τιμιώτερα » λέγει τὰ διαπλασθέντα παρ' αὐτοῦ νῦν ἐν τῷ δόγματι, τουτέστι τὸν υἱὸν καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, τάχα καλῶς ἔχει σιωπῇ μᾶλλον τὸν λόγον βδελύξασθαι ἢ διὰ τοῦ συμπλακῆναι τὸ δοκεῖν αὐτὸν καὶ λόγον εἶναι κατασκευάσαι. πῶς γὰρ ἂν εὑρεθείη τὸ προτιμότερον ἐν οἷς οὐκ ἔστι τὸ ἀτιμότερον; εἰ μὲν γὰρ μέχρι τούτου τῇ πρὸς τὸ κακὸν εὐκολίᾳ καὶ ἑτοιμότητι πρόεισιν, ὥστε τοῦ ἀτιμοτέρου καὶ τὴν φωνὴν καὶ τὴν ἔννοιαν ἐπί τινος τῶν ἐν τῇ ἁγίᾳ τριάδι πιστευομένων ὑπονοῆσαι, βῦσαι τὰ ὦτα προσήκει καὶ φυγεῖν ὅση δύναμις ἀπὸ ἀκοῆς πονηρᾶς, ὡς ἂν μὴ κοινωνία τις τοῦ μιάσματος γένοιτο τῷ ἀκούοντι, καθάπερ ἐξ ἀγγείου τινὸς πλήρους ἀκαθαρσίας εἰς τὴν τοῦ ἀκούοντος καρδίαν μεταχεομένου τοῦ λόγου.
Πῶς γὰρ ἄν τις ἐπὶ τῆς θείας τε καὶ τιμίας καὶ ὑπερκειμένης φύσεως εἰπεῖν τι τοιοῦτο τολμήσειε, δι' οὗ τὸ ἀτιμότερον συγκριτικῶς ὑπὸ « τοῦ » λόγου κατασκευάζεται; Ἵνα πάντες, φησί, τιμῶσι τὸν υἱόν, καθὼς τιμῶσι τὸν πατέρα. τῆς οὖν φωνῆς ταύτης τὸ ἴσον τῆς τιμῆς νομοθετούσης (νόμος γάρ ἐστιν ἡ θεία φωνή) οὗτος καὶ τὸν νόμον καὶ τὸν νομοθέτην αὐτὸν παραγράφεται καὶ τῷ μὲν πλείονα, τῷ δὲ ἐλάττονα τὴν τιμὴν διανέμει, οὐκ οἶδα ὅπως τὰ μέτρα τοῦ πλεονάζοντος τῆς τιμῆς ἐξευρίσκων. ἐπὶ μὲν γὰρ τῆς ἀνθρωπίνης συνηθείας αἱ κατὰ τὰς ἀξίας διαφοραὶ τὰς τιμὰς τοῖς κρατοῦσιν ὁρίζονται, ὡς μὴ ἐν ὁμοίῳ καὶ ἴσῳ τῷ σχήματι τοὺς ὑποχειρίους βασιλεῦσί τε προσιέναι καὶ ταῖς ὑποβεβηκυίαις ἀρχαῖς: ἀλλ' ἡ πλείων τε καὶ ὑφειμένη τοῦ φόβου καὶ τῆς αἰδοῦς τῶν προσιόντων ἐπίδειξις τὸ ἐνδέον καὶ περιττεῦον τῆς τιμῆς ἐπὶ τῶν τιμωμένων ἐνδείκνυται, καὶ τούτῳ μάλιστα τοὺς προτιμοτέρους ἐν τῇ διαθέσει τῶν ὑποχειρίων ἔστιν εὑρεῖν, ὅταν τις ὑπὲρ τοὺς πέλας φοβερὸς εἶναι μᾶλλον καὶ πλείονος τῆς αἰδοῦς ἢ κατὰ τοὺς λοιποὺς ἀξιοῦσθαι δοκῇ. ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς θείας φύσεως διὰ τὸ πᾶσαν τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν τελειότητα συνεμφαίνεσθαι τῷ τοῦ θείου προσρήματι οὐκ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν κατά γε τὴν ἡμετέραν διάνοιαν τὸν τρόπον τῆς προτιμήσεως. ἐν οἷς γὰρ οὐ δυνάμεως, οὐ δόξης, οὐ σοφίας, οὐ φιλανθρωπίας οὐδέ τινος ὅλως τῆς κατὰ τὸ ἀγαθὸν ἐννοίας πλεονασμὸς ἢ ἐλάττωσις ἐπινοεῖται, ἀλλὰ πάντα, ὅσα ἔχει ὁ υἱὸς ἀγαθά, τοῦ πατρός ἐστι καὶ τὰ τοῦ πατρὸς πάντα ἐν τῷ υἱῷ καθορᾶται, πῶς διατεθέντες τὸ πλέον τῆς τιμῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐνδειξόμεθα; εἰ βασιλικὴν δύναμιν καὶ ἀξίαν τῇ διανοίᾳ λάβοιμεν, βασιλεὺς ὁ υἱός: ἐὰν κριτὴν ἐννοήσωμεν, ἡ κρίσις πᾶσα τοῦ υἱοῦ ἐστιν: ἐὰν τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς κτίσεως τῇ ψυχῇ δεξώμεθα, πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο: ἐὰν τῆς ἡμετέρας ζωῆς τὴν αἰτίαν κατανοήσωμεν, οἴδαμεν τὴν ἀληθῆ ζωὴν τὴν μέχρι τῆς φύσεως ἡμῶν καταβᾶσαν: κἂν « τὴν » ἐκ τοῦ σκότους μετάστασιν καταμάθωμεν, οὐκ ἀγνοοῦμεν τὸ φῶς τὸ ἀληθινόν, δι' οὗ τοῦ σκότους ἠλλοτριώθημεν: εἰ δέ τινι τίμιον ἡ σοφία δοκεῖ, Χριστὸς θεοῦ δύναμις καὶ θεοῦ σοφία.
Πρὸς τοίνυν τὰ τοιαῦτα καὶ τηλικαῦτα τοῦ Χριστοῦ θαύματα τῆς ψυχῆς ἡμῶν κατὰ τὸ εἰκός, ὅσον χωρεῖ, τοσοῦτον θαυμαστικῶς διατιθεμένης, τίς ὑπερβολὴ τιμῆς καταληφθῆναι δυνήσεται τῆς τῷ πατρὶ μόνῳ κατ' ἐξαίρετον προσαγομένης, ἧς ἀμοιρήσει πρεπόντως ὁ κύριος; αὐτὸ γὰρ τοῦτο ἡ ἀνθρωπίνη πρὸς τὸ θεῖον τιμὴ κατὰ τὸν εἰκότα νοῦν θεωρουμένη οὐδεμία τις ἄλλη ἐστὶν ἀλλ' ἢ ἀγαπητικὴ σχέσις καὶ ἡ τῶν προσόντων αὐτῷ ἀγαθῶν ὁμολογία, καί μοι δοκεῖ τὸ οὕτω δεῖν τιμᾶσθαι τὸν υἱὸν ὡς ὁ πατὴρ τιμᾶται, ἀντὶ τῆς ἀγάπης ὑπὸ τοῦ λόγου τετάχθαι: ὁ γὰρ νόμος ἐν τῷ ἀγαπᾶν τὸν θεὸν ἐξ ὅλης καρδίας καὶ δυνάμεως τὴν πρέπουσαν αὐτῷ τιμὴν ἀπονέμειν κελεύει, καὶ ἐνταῦθα τὸ ἰσοστάσιον τῆς ἀγάπης ὁ θεὸς λόγος νομοθετῶν οὕτω φησὶ δεῖν τιμᾶσθαι τὸν υἱόν, ὡς ὁ πατὴρ τιμᾶται. τοῦτον τὸν τρόπον τῆς τιμῆς ἐπλήρου καὶ ὁ μέγας Δαβὶδ πρὸς τὸν κύριον ἔν τινι προοιμίῳ τῆς ψαλμῳδίας ἀγαπᾶν ὁμολογῶν τὸν κύριον καὶ διεξιὼν τὰ τῆς ἀγάπης αἴτια, ἰσχὺν καὶ κραταίωμα καὶ καταφυγὴν καὶ ῥύστην καὶ θεὸν βοηθὸν καὶ ἐλπίδα καὶ ὑπερασπιστὴν καὶ σωτηρίας κέρας καὶ ἀντιλήπτορα καὶ τὰ τοιαῦτα καλῶν. εἰ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ μονογενὴς [υἱὸς] ταῦτα τοῖς ἀνθρώποις γινόμενος, ὑποστελλέσθω τὸ πλεονάζον τῆς τιμῆς ἐπὶ τούτου κατὰ τὸν τῆς αἱρέσεως νόμον: εἰ δὲ πάντα ταῦτα καὶ ὑπὲρ ταῦτα τὸν μονογενῆ θεὸν εἶναί τε καὶ ὀνομάζεσθαι πεπιστεύκαμεν, κατὰ πᾶσαν ἀγαθοῦ πράγματος καὶ νοήματος ἐπίνοιαν πρὸς τὸ μεγαλεῖον τῆς ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ἀγαθότητος ἐξισαζόμενον, πῶς ἄν τις εὔλογον εἶναι λέγοι ἢ μὴ ἀγαπᾶν τὸ τοιοῦτον ἢ ἀτιμάζειν τὸ ἀγαπώμενον; οὐ γὰρ ἂν εἴποι τις τὴν μὲν ἀγάπην δεῖν ἐξ ὅλης γίνεσθαι τῆς καρδίας καὶ τῆς δυνάμεως, τὴν δὲ τιμὴν ἐξ ἡμισείας. εἰ οὖν ἐξ ὅλης τῆς καρδίας τιμᾶται ὁ υἱὸς διὰ τοῦ πᾶσαν ἀνατιθέναι αὐτῷ τὴν ἀγάπην, τίς ἐπίνοια τὸ πλέον τῆς τιμῆς ἐξευρήσει, ὅλης τῆς καρδίας, ὅσον χωρεῖ, τοσοῦτον αὐτῷ διὰ τῆς ἀγάπης τὸ τῆς τιμῆς μέτρον δωροφορούσης; ὥστε μάταιος ἐπὶ τῶν κατὰ φύσιν τιμίων ὁ τὸ προτιμότερον δογματίζων καὶ διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης συγκρίσεως τοῦ ἀτιμοτέρου παριστῶν τὴν ἔννοιαν.
Ἀλλὰ καὶ τὸ « πρεσβύτερον » ἐπὶ μὲν τῆς αἰσθητῆς κτίσεως λέγειν ἀληθές ἐστι: τῆς γὰρ ἀκολουθίας τῶν ἔργων ἐν τῇ τάξει τῶν ἡμερῶν δεικνυμένης, εἴποι τις ἂν τῆς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου κατασκευῆς τοσόνδε προγενέστερον εἶναι τὸν οὐρανόν, καὶ διαμετρήσει τὸν διὰ μέσου χρόνον τῷ τῶν ἡμερῶν διαστήματι: ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς πρώτης φύσεως τῆς πᾶσαν μὲν χρονικὴν ἔννοιαν ὑπεραιρούσης πᾶσαν δ' ἐπίνοιαν καταληπτικὴν ἀπολειπούσης τὸ μέν τι προάγειν ἐν τοῖς κατὰ τὸν χρόνον πρεσβείοις τὸ δὲ ἐφυστερίζειν οἴεσθαι τῆς νῦν ἀναφανείσης σοφίας ἐστίν. ὁ γὰρ « πρεσβύτερον » τὸν πατέρα τῆς τοῦ μονογενοῦς ὑποστάσεως ἀποφαινόμενος οὐδὲν ἄλλο ἢ νεώτερον τῶν διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γενομένων αὐτὸν τὸν υἱὸν ἀποφαίνεται, εἴπερ ἀληθὲς πάντας αἰῶνας καὶ πᾶν διάστημα χρονικὸν μετὰ τὸν υἱὸν καὶ διὰ τοῦ υἱοῦ γεγενῆσθαι λέγειν.