Against Eunomius.

 Contents of Book I.

 Contents of Book II.

 Contents of Book III.

 Contents of Book IV.

 Contents of Book V.

 Contents of Book VI.

 Contents of Book VII.

 Contents of Book VIII.

 Contents of Book IX.

 Contents of Book X.

 Contents of Book XI.

 Contents of Book XII.

 §1. Preface.—It is useless to attempt to benefit those who will not accept help.

 §2. We have been justly provoked to make this Answer, being stung by Eunomius’ accusations of our brother.

 §3. We see nothing remarkable in logical force in the treatise of Eunomius, and so embark on our Answer with a just confidence.

 §4. Eunomius displays much folly and fine writing, but very little seriousness about vital points.

 §5. His peculiar caricature of the bishops, Eustathius of Armenia and Basil of Galatia, is not well drawn.

 §6. A notice of Aetius, Eunomius’ master in heresy, and of Eunomius himself, describing the origin and avocations of each.

 §7. Eunomius himself proves that the confession of faith which He made was not impeached.

 §8. Facts show that the terms of abuse which he has employed against Basil are more suitable for himself.

 §9. In charging Basil with not defending his faith at the time of the ‘Trials,’ he lays himself open to the same charge.

 §10. All his insulting epithets are shewn by facts to be false.

 §11. The sophistry which he employs to prove our acknowledgment that he had been tried, and that the confession of his faith had not been unimpeached,

 §12. His charge of cowardice is baseless: for Basil displayed the highest courage before the Emperor and his Lord-Lieutenants.

 §13. Résumé of his dogmatic teaching. Objections to it in detail.

 §14. He did wrong, when mentioning the Doctrines of Salvation, in adopting terms of his own choosing instead of the traditional terms Father, Son, and

 §15. He does wrong in making the being of the Father alone proper and supreme, implying by his omission of the Son and the Spirit that theirs is impro

 §16. Examination of the meaning of ‘subjection:’ in that he says that the nature of the Holy Spirit is subject to that of the Father and the Son. It i

 §17. Discussion as to the exact nature of the ‘energies’ which, this man declares, ‘follow’ the being of the Father and of the Son.

 §18. He has no reason for distinguishing a plurality of beings in the Trinity. He offers no demonstration that it is so.

 §19. His acknowledgment that the Divine Being is ‘single’ is only verbal.

 §20. He does wrong in assuming, to account for the existence of the Only-Begotten, an ‘energy’ that produced Christ’s Person.

 §21. The blasphemy of these heretics is worse than the Jewish unbelief.

 §22. He has no right to assert a greater and less in the Divine being. A systematic statement of the teaching of the Church.

 §23. These doctrines of our Faith witnessed to and confirmed by Scripture passages .

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

 §25. He who asserts that the Father is ‘prior’ to the Son with any thought of an interval must perforce allow that even the Father is not without begi

 §26. It will not do to apply this conception, as drawn out above, of the Father and Son to the Creation, as they insist on doing: but we must contempl

 §27. He falsely imagines that the same energies produce the same works, and that variation in the works indicates variation in the energies.

 §28. He falsely imagines that we can have an unalterable series of harmonious natures existing side by side.

 §29. He vainly thinks that the doubt about the energies is to be solved by the beings, and reversely.

 §30. There is no Word of God that commands such investigations: the uselessness of the philosophy which makes them is thereby proved.

 §31. The observations made by watching Providence are sufficient to give us the knowledge of sameness of Being.

 §32. His dictum that ‘the manner of the likeness must follow the manner of the generation’ is unintelligible.

 §33. He declares falsely that ‘the manner of the generation is to be known from the intrinsic worth of the generator’.

 §34. The Passage where he attacks the ‘ Ομοούσιον , and the contention in answer to it.

 §35. Proof that the Anomœan teaching tends to Manichæism.

 §36. A passing repetition of the teaching of the Church.

 §37. Defence of S. Basil’s statement, attacked by Eunomius, that the terms ‘Father’ and ‘The Ungenerate’ can have the same meaning .

 §38. Several ways of controverting his quibbling syllogisms .

 §39. Answer to the question he is always asking, “Can He who is be begotten?”

 §40. His unsuccessful attempt to be consistent with his own statements after Basil has confuted him.

 §41. The thing that follows is not the same as the thing that it follows.

 §42. Explanation of ‘Ungenerate,’ and a ‘study’ of Eternity.

 Book II

 Book II.

 §2. Gregory then makes an explanation at length touching the eternal Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

 §3. Gregory proceeds to discuss the relative force of the unnameable name of the Holy Trinity and the mutual relation of the Persons, and moreover the

 §4. He next skilfully confutes the partial, empty and blasphemous statement of Eunomius on the subject of the absolutely existent.

 §5. He next marvellously overthrows the unintelligible statements of Eunomius which assert that the essence of the Father is not separated or divided,

 §6. He then shows the unity of the Son with the Father and Eunomius’ lack of understanding and knowledge in the Scriptures.

 §7. Gregory further shows that the Only-Begotten being begotten not only of the Father, but also impassibly of the Virgin by the Holy Ghost, does not

 §8. He further very appositely expounds the meaning of the term “Only-Begotten,” and of the term “First born,” four times used by the Apostle.

 §9. Gregory again discusses the generation of the Only-Begotten, and other different modes of generation, material and immaterial, and nobly demonstra

 §10. He explains the phrase “The Lord created Me,” and the argument about the origination of the Son, the deceptive character of Eunomius’ reasoning,

 §11. After expounding the high estate of the Almighty, the Eternity of the Son, and the phrase “being made obedient,” he shows the folly of Eunomius i

 §12. He thus proceeds to a magnificent discourse of the interpretation of “Mediator,” “Like,” “Ungenerate,” and “generate,” and of “The likeness and s

 §13. He expounds the passage of the Gospel, “The Father judgeth no man,” and further speaks of the assumption of man with body and soul wrought by the

 §14. He proceeds to discuss the views held by Eunomius, and by the Church, touching the Holy Spirit and to show that the Father, the Son, and the Hol

 §15. Lastly he displays at length the folly of Eunomius, who at times speaks of the Holy Spirit as created, and as the fairest work of the Son, and at

 Book III

 Book III.

 §2. He then once more excellently, appropriately, and clearly examines and expounds the passage, “The Lord Created Me.”

 §3. He then shows, from the instance of Adam and Abel, and other examples, the absence of alienation of essence in the case of the “generate” and “ung

 §4. He thus shows the oneness of the Eternal Son with the Father the identity of essence and the community of nature (wherein is a natural inquiry int

 §5. He discusses the incomprehensibility of the Divine essence, and the saying to the woman of Samaria, “Ye worship ye know not what.”

 §6. Thereafter he expounds the appellation of “Son,” and of “product of generation,” and very many varieties of “sons,” of God, of men, of rams, of pe

 §7. Then he ends the book with an exposition of the Divine and Human names of the Only-Begotten, and a discussion of the terms “generate” and “ungener

 Book IV

 Book IV.

 §2. He convicts Eunomius of having used of the Only-begotten terms applicable to the existence of the earth, and thus shows that his intention is to p

 §3. He then again admirably discusses the term πρωτότοκος as it is four times employed by the Apostle.

 §4. He proceeds again to discuss the impassibility of the Lord’s generation and the folly of Eunomius, who says that the generated essence involves t

 §5. He again shows Eunomius, constrained by truth, in the character of an advocate of the orthodox doctrine, confessing as most proper and primary, no

 §6. He then exposes argument about the “Generate,” and the “product of making,” and “product of creation,” and shows the impious nature of the languag

 §7. He then clearly and skilfully criticises the doctrine of the impossibility of comparison with the things made after the Son, and exposes the idola

 §8. He proceeds to show that there is no “variance” in the essence of the Father and the Son: wherein he expounds many forms of variation and harmony,

 §9. Then, distinguishing between essence and generation, he declares the empty and frivolous language of Eunomius to be like a rattle. He proceeds to

 Book V

 Book V.

 §2. He then explains the phrase of S. Peter, “Him God made Lord and Christ.” And herein he sets forth the opposing statement of Eunomius, which he mad

 §3. A remarkable and original reply to these utterances, and a demonstration of the power of the Crucified, and of the fact that this subjection was o

 §4. He shows the falsehood of Eunomius’ calumnious charge that the great Basil had said that “man was emptied to become man,” and demonstrates that th

 §5. Thereafter he shows that there are not two Christs or two Lords, but one Christ and one Lord, and that the Divine nature, after mingling with the

 Book VI

 Book VI.

 §2. Then he again mentions S. Peter’s word, “made,” and the passage in the Epistle to the Hebrews, which says that Jesus was made by God “an Apostle a

 §3. He then gives a notable explanation of the saying of the Lord to Philip, “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father ” and herein he excellently di

 §4. Then returning to the words of Peter, “God made Him Lord and Christ,” he skilfully explains it by many arguments, and herein shows Eunomius as an

 Book VII

 Book VII.

 §2. He then declares that the close relation between names and things is immutable, and thereafter proceeds accordingly, in the most excellent manner,

 §3. Thereafter he discusses the divergence of names and of things, speaking, of that which is ungenerate as without a cause, and of that which is non-

 §4. He says that all things that are in creation have been named by man, if, as is the case, they are called differently by every nation, as also the

 §5. After much discourse concerning the actually existent, and ungenerate and good, and upon the consubstantiality of the heavenly powers, showing the

 Book VIII

 Book VIII.

 §2. He then discusses the “willing” of the Father concerning the generation of the Son, and shows that the object of that good will is from eternity,

 §3. Then, thus passing over what relates to the essence of the Son as having been already discussed, he treats of the sense involved in “generation,”

 §4. He further shows the operations of God to be expressed by human illustrations for what hands and feet and the other parts of the body with which

 §5. Then, after showing that the Person of the Only-begotten and Maker of things has no beginning, as have the things that were made by Him, as Eunomi

 Book IX

 Book IX.

 §2. He then ingeniously shows that the generation of the Son is not according to the phrase of Eunomius, “The Father begat Him at that time when He ch

 §3. He further shows that the pretemporal generation of the Son is not the subject of influences drawn from ordinary and carnal generation, but is wit

 §4. Then, having shown that Eunomius’ calumny against the great Basil, that he called the Only-begotten “Ungenerate,” is false, and having again with

 Book X

 Book X.

 §2. He then wonderfully displays the Eternal Life, which is Christ, to those who confess Him not, and applies to them the mournful lamentation of Jere

 §3. He then shows the eternity of the Son’s generation, and the inseparable identity of His essence with Him that begat Him, and likens the folly of E

 §4. After this he shows that the Son, who truly is, and is in the bosom of the Father, is simple and uncompounded, and that, He Who redeemed us from b

 Book XI

 Book XI.

 §2. He also ingeniously shows from the passage of the Gospel which speaks of “Good Master,” from the parable of the Vineyard, from Isaiah and from Pau

 §3. He then exposes the ignorance of Eunomius, and the incoherence and absurdity of his arguments, in speaking of the Son as “the Angel of the Existen

 §4. After this, fearing to extend his reply to great length, he passes by most of his adversary’s statements as already refuted. But the remainder, fo

 §5. Eunomius again speaks of the Son as Lord and God, and Maker of all creation intelligible and sensible, having received from the Father the power a

 Book XII

 Book XII.

 §2. Then referring to the blasphemy of Eunomius, which had been refuted by the great Basil, where he banished the Only-begotten God to the realm of da

 §3. He further proceeds notably to interpret the language of the Gospel, “In the beginning was the Word,” and “Life” and “Light,” and “The Word was ma

 §4. He then again charges Eunomius with having learnt his term ἀγεννησία from the hieroglyphic writings, and from the Egyptian mythology and idolatry,

 §5. Then, again discussing the true Light and unapproachable Light of the Father and of the Son, special attributes, community and essence, and showin

§23. These doctrines of our Faith witnessed to and confirmed by Scripture passages.

It is therefore clear that these are metaphors, which contain a deeper meaning than the obvious one: so that there is no reason from them that any suspicion that our Lord was created should be entertained by reverent inquirers, who have been trained according to the grand words of the evangelist, that “all things that have been made were made by Him” and “consist in Him.” “Without Him was not anything made that was made.” The evangelist would not have so defined it if he had believed that our Lord was one among the things made. How could all things be made by Him and in Him consist, unless their Maker possessed a nature different from theirs, and so produced, not Himself, but them? If the creation was by Him, but He was not by Himself, plainly He is something outside the creation. And after the evangelist has by these words so plainly declared that the things that were made were made by the Son, and did not pass into existence by any other channel, Paul 73    in the Canon. (Oehler’s stopping is here at fault, i.e. he begins a new paragraph with ᾽Εκδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ὁ Παῦλος). We need not speculate whether Gregory was aware that the Epistle to the Colossians (quoted below) is an earlier ‘Gospel’ than S. John’s.follows and, to leave no ground at all for this profane talk which numbers even the Spirit amongst the things that were made, he mentions one after another all the existencies which the evangelist’s words imply: just as David in fact, after having said that “all things” were put in subjection to man, adds each species which that “all” comprehends, that is, the creatures on land, in water, and in air, so does Paul the Apostle, expounder of the divine doctrines, after saying that all things were made by Him, define by numbering them the meaning of “all.” He speaks of “the things that are seen74    Coloss. i. 16.” and “the things that are not seen:” by the first he gives a general name to all things cognizable by the senses, as we have seen: by the latter he shadows forth the intelligible world.

Now about the first there is no necessity of going into minute detail. No one is so carnal, so brutelike, as to imagine that the Spirit resides in the sensible world. But after Paul has mentioned “the things that are not seen” he proceeds (in order that none may surmise that the Spirit, because He is of the intelligible and immaterial world, on account of this connexion subsists therein) to another most distinct division into the things that have been made in the way of creation, and the existence that is above creation. He mentions the several classes of these created intelligibles: “75    Coloss. i. 16.thrones,” “dominions,” “principalities,” “powers,” conveying his doctrine about these unseen influences in broadly comprehensive terms: but by his very silence he separates from his list of things created that which is above them. It is just as if any one was required to name the sectional and inferior officers in some army, and after he had gone through them all, the commanders of tens, the commanders of hundreds, the captains and the colonels76    ταξιάρχας καὶ λοχαγοὺς, ἑκατοντάρχους τε καὶ χιλιάρχους. The difference between the two pairs seems to be the difference between ‘non-commissioned’ and ‘commissioned’ officers., and all the other names given to the authorities over divisions, omitted after all to speak of the supreme command which extended over all the others: not from deliberate neglect, or from forgetfulness, but because when required or intending to name only the several ranks which served under it, it would have been an insult to include this supreme command in the list of the inferior. So do we find it with Paul, who once in Paradise was admitted to mysteries, when he had been caught up there, and had become a spectator of the wonders that are above the heavens, and saw and heard “things which it is not lawful for a man to utter77    2 Corinth. xii. 4..” This Apostle proposes to tell us of all that has been created by our Lord, and he gives them under certain comprehensive terms: but, having traversed all the angelic and transcendental world, he stops his reckoning there, and refuses to drag down to the level of creation that which is above it. Hence there is a clear testimony in Scripture that the Holy Spirit is higher than the creation. Should any one attempt to refute this, by urging that neither are the Cherubim mentioned by Paul, that they equally with the Spirit are left out, and that therefore this omission must prove either that they also are above the creation, or that the Holy Spirit is not any more than they to be believed above it, let him measure the full intent of each name in the list: and he will find amongst them that which from not being actually mentioned seems, but only seems, omitted. Under “thrones” he includes the Cherubim, giving them this Greek name, as more intelligible than the Hebrew name for them. He knew that “God sits upon the Cherubim:” and so he calls these Powers the thrones of Him who sits thereon. In the same way there are included in the list Isaiah’s Seraphim78    Isaiah vi. 6, 7., by whom the mystery of the Trinity was luminously proclaimed, when they uttered that marvellous cry “Holy,” being awestruck with the beauty in each Person of the Trinity. They are named under the title of “powers” both by the mighty Paul, and by the prophet David. The latter says, “Bless ye the Lord all ye His powers, ye ministers of His that do His pleasure79    Psalm ciii. 21.:” and Isaiah instead of saying “Bless ye” has written the very words of their blessing, “Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of hosts: the whole earth is full of His glory” and he has revealed by what one of the Seraphim did (to him) that these powers are ministers that do God’s pleasure, effecting the ‘purging of sin’ according to the will of Him Who sent them: for this is the ministry of these spiritual beings, viz., to be sent forth for the salvation of those who are being saved.

That divine Apostle perceived this. He understood that the same matter is indicated under different names by the two prophets, and he took the best known of the two words, and called those Seraphim “powers:” so that no ground is left to our critics for saying that any single one of these beings is omitted equally with the Holy Ghost from the catalogue of creation. We learn from the existences detailed by Paul that while some existences have been mentioned, others have been passed over: and while he has taken count of the creation in masses as it were, he has (elsewhere) mentioned as units those things which are conceived of singly. For it is a peculiarity of the Holy Trinity that it is to be proclaimed as consisting of individuals: one Father, one Son, one Holy Ghost: whereas those existences aforesaid are counted in masses, “dominions,” “principalities,” “lordships,” “powers,” so as to exclude any suspicion that the Holy Ghost was one of them. Paul is wisely silent upon our mysteries; he understands how, after having heard those unspeakable words in paradise, to refrain from proclaiming those secrets when he is making mention of lower beings.

But these foes of the truth rush in upon the ineffable; they degrade the majesty of the Spirit to the level of the creation; they act as if they had never heard that the Word of God, when confiding to His disciples the secret of knowing God, Himself said that the life of 80    τοῖς ἀναγεννωμένοιςthe regenerate was to be completed in them and imparted in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and, thereby ranking the Spirit with the Father and Himself, precluded Him from being confused with the creation. From both, therefore, we may get a reverential and proper conception with regard to Him: from Paul’s omitting the Spirit’s existence in the mention of the creation, and from our Lord’s joining the Spirit with His Father and Himself in mentioning the life-giving power. Thus does our reason, under the guidance of the Scripture, place not only the Only-begotten but the Holy Spirit as well above the creation, and prompt us in accordance with our Saviour’s command to contemplate Him by faith in the blessed world of life giving and uncreated existence: and so this unit, which we believe in, above creation, and sharing in the supreme and absolutely perfect nature, cannot be regarded as in any way a ‘less,’ although this teacher of heresy attempt to curtail its infinitude by introducing the idea of degrees, and thus contracting the divine perfection by defining a greater and a less as residing in the Persons.

Δῆλον οὖν ὅτι αἰνίγματα τινῶν ἐστι τὰ λεγόμενα βαθυτέραν τινὰ τῆς προχείρου διανοίας τὴν θεωρίαν ἐμπεριέχοντα, ὡς ἐκ τούτων μηδενὶ λόγῳ τὴν τοῦ ἐκτίσθαι τὸν κύριον ὑπόνοιαν ἐκ τῆς γραφῆς ταύτης τοῖς εὐσεβῶς λογιζομένοις ἐγγίνεσθαι, τοῖς πεπαιδευμένοις μάλιστα διὰ τῆς τοῦ εὐαγγελιστοῦ μεγαλοφωνίας τοῦ πάντα τὰ γεγονότα δι' αὐτοῦ γεγενῆσθαι καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ συνεστάναι λέγοντος. Πάντα γάρ, φησί, δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ, οὐκ ἂν τοῦτο διορισάμενος, εἰ καὶ αὐτὸν τὸν κύριον ἓν τῶν γεγονότων ἐπίστευε. πῶς γὰρ δι' ἐκείνου πάντα γίνεται καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὰ γεγονότα τὴν σύστασιν ἔχει, εἰ μὴ πάντως ἄλλο τι παρὰ τὴν τῶν πεποιημένων φύσιν ὁ ποιητὴς ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἑαυτὸν ἀλλὰ τὴν κτίσιν εἰργάσατο; εἰ γὰρ ἡ κτίσις δι' ἐκείνου, αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ κύριος οὐ δι' ἑαυτοῦ, ἄλλο τι πάντως καὶ οὐχὶ κτίσις ἐστί. τοῦ τοίνυν εὐαγγελιστοῦ φήσαντος, ὅτι Πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν ἐν αὐτῷ, καὶ φανερῶς διὰ τούτων ἐνδειξαμένου, ὅτι καὶ ἐν τῷ υἱῷ τὰ γενόμενα γέγονε καὶ οὐ δι' ἑτέρου τινὸς τὴν εἰς τὸ γενέσθαι πάροδον ἔσχεν, ἐκδέχεται τὸν λόγον τοῦτον ὁ Παῦλος, καὶ ὡς ἂν μηδεμίαν καταλίποι πρόφασιν τῇ βλασφήμῳ φωνῇ τοῦ συναριθμεῖν τοῖς γεγονόσι καὶ τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φύσιν, ὑπ' ἀριθμὸν ἄγει τὰ πάντα, ποῖά ἐστι ταῦτα ἃ πάντα τῷ εὐαγγελιστῇ καὶ εἴρηται καὶ νενόηται: καὶ καθάπερ ὁ μέγας Δαβὶδ πάντα ὑποτετάχθαι τῷ ἀνθρώπῳ φήσας καὶ τὸ κατ' εἶδος προσέθηκε, ποῖα ἦν τὰ ἐμπεριλαμβανόμενα τῇ τῶν πάντων φωνῇ, τουτέστι τὰ χερσαῖα καὶ τὰ ἔνυδρα καὶ τὰ ἐναέρια ζῷα, οὕτω καὶ ὁ τῶν θείων δογμάτων ἐξηγητὴς ὁ ἀπόστολος πάντα ἐν αὐτῷ γεγενῆσθαι εἰπὼν περιγράφει τοῖς ὑπαριθμηθεῖσι τῶν πάντων τὴν ἔννοιαν. Ὁρατὰ γάρ, φησί, καὶ ἀόρατα, διὰ μὲν τῶν ὁρατῶν καθὼς εἴρηται τὰ τῇ αἰσθήσει γνώριμα περιλαβὼν τῷ ὀνόματι, διὰ δὲ τῶν ἀοράτων τὴν τῶν νοητῶν ἐνδειξάμενος φύσιν.
Ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τῶν αἰσθητῶν οὐδὲν ἐδεήθη λεπτομερῶς διεξελθεῖν ἐπ' ὀνόματος. οὐδεὶς γὰρ οὕτω σάρκινος οὐδὲ κτηνώδης ἐστίν, ὡς ἐν τοῖς αἰσθητοῖς ὑποπτεῦσαι καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον εἶναι. τῶν δὲ ἀοράτων μνησθείς, ἐπειδὴ νοερὰ καὶ ἀσώματος καὶ ἡ τοῦ πνεύματος φύσις ἐστίν, ὡς ἂν μή τις ἐν τούτοις ὑπονοήσειεν ὑφεστάναι τὸ πνεῦμα διὰ τὴν κατὰ τὸ ἀόρατον κοινωνίαν, ἐναργεστάτην ποιεῖται τὴν διαίρεσιν τῶν τε διὰ τῆς κτίσεως γεγονότων καὶ τῆς ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν οὐσίας. τὰ μὲν γὰρ κτισθέντα καταριθμεῖται τῷ λόγῳ, θρόνους τινὰς καὶ ἀρχὰς καὶ ἐξουσίας καὶ κυριότητας λέγων, γενικοῖς τισι καὶ περιληπτικοῖς ὀνόμασι τῶν ἀοράτων τούτων δυνάμεων τὴν διδασκαλίαν ποιούμενος, τὰ δὲ ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν δι' αὐτῆς τῆς σιωπῆς ἀποχωρίζει τοῦ ἀριθμοῦ τῶν κτισθέντων. ὥσπερ ἂν εἴ τις προσταχθεὶς ἐπὶ στρατοπέδου τὰς λεπτομερεῖς καὶ ὑποβεβηκυίας ἀρχὰς εἰπεῖν ἐπ' ὀνόματος, ταξιάρχας καὶ λοχαγοὺς ἑκατοντάρχους τε καὶ χιλιάρχους καὶ εἴ τινες ἄλλαι τῶν κατὰ μέρος δυναστειῶν ὠνομασμέναι εἰσὶ πάσας διεξελθὼν τῷ λόγῳ τῆς πάντων κρατούσης καὶ πᾶσαν τὴν δύναμιν διεπούσης ἀρχῆς μηδεμίαν μνήμην ποιήσαιτο, οὐ δι' ὑπεροψίαν ἢ λήθην τὴν ὑπερέχουσαν ἀρχὴν σιωπήσας, ἀλλ' ὅτι μόνον τὴν ὑπήκοόν τε καὶ ὑποχείριον τάξιν διεξελθεῖν ἢ προσταχθεὶς ἢ προθέμενος ὑβρίσειεν ἂν ἐν τῇ τῶν ὑποκειμένων μνήμῃ συμπεριλαβὼν καὶ τὴν ἄρχουσαν, οὕτω μοι δοκεῖ καὶ ὁ ἐν παραδείσῳ μυηθεὶς τὰ ἀπόρρητα Παῦλος, ὅτε ἁρπαγεὶς ἐν αὐτῷ ἐγένετο καὶ τῶν ὑπερουρανίων θαυμάτων θεατὴς καταστὰς τὰ ἀνθρώποις ἄρρητα καὶ εἶδε καὶ ἤκουσεν, οὗτος τὰ ἐν τῷ κυρίῳ κτισθέντα διδάξαι προθέμενος, ἐπειδὴ διεξῆλθε ταῦτα τῷ λόγῳ, περιληπτικαῖς τισι φωναῖς διαδραμὼν τὴν ἀγγελικὴν καὶ ὑπερκόσμιον δύναμιν, ἔστησεν ἐν τοῖς μνημονευθεῖσι τὸν λόγον, τῶν ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν οὐδὲν εἰς τὸν κατάλογον τῶν κτιστῶν καθελκύσας, ὡς ἐκ τούτου σαφῶς ἄνω τῆς κτίσεως εἶναι τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ὑπὸ τῆς γραφῆς μαρτυρεῖσθαι.
Εἰ δέ τις ἀνατρέποι τὸν λόγον ὡς οὐδὲ τῶν Χερουβὶμ ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου μνημονευθέντων, ἀλλὰ καὶ τούτων μετὰ τοῦ πνεύματος ἐν τῇ τῶν γεγονότων ἀπαριθμήσει σιωπηθέντων, καὶ κατασκευάζοι διὰ τοῦ παραλελεῖφθαι τὴν περὶ τούτων μνήμην ἢ καὶ ταῦτα ὑπὲρ τὴν κτίσιν ἢ μηδὲ τὸ πνεῦμα δεῖν οἴεσθαι, λογισάσθω τὴν τῶν ἀπηριθμημένων διάνοιαν, καὶ τὸ παρεῖσθαι δοκοῦν, ὅτι μὴ ἐξ ὀνόματος ἡ μνήμη γέγονεν, ἐν τοῖς εἰρημένοις κατόψεται: ὁ γὰρ θρόνων μνημονεύσας ἄλλῳ ὀνόματι τὰ Χερουβὶμ διηγήσατο, τῇ γνωριμωτέρᾳ προσηγορίᾳ τὸ ἀσαφὲς τῆς Ἑβραΐδος ἐξελληνίσας. καθῆσθαι γὰρ τὸν θεὸν ἐπὶ τῶν Χερουβὶμ ἀκούσας τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας τοῦ ἐπ' αὐτῶν καθεζομένου θρόνους ὠνόμασεν: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ τὰ παρὰ τῷ Ἠσαΐᾳ Σεραφίμ, παρ' ὧν ἐναργῶς τὸ τῆς τριάδος ἐκηρύχθη μυστήριον, ὅτε τὴν ”ἅγιος„ φωνὴν τὸ ἐν ἑκάστῳ τῶν ἐν τῇ τριάδι κάλλος καταπλησσόμενα θαυμαστικῶς ἐξεβόησαν, περιείληπται τῷ καταλόγῳ τῶν μνημονευθέντων, τῇ προσηγορίᾳ τῶν „δυνάμεων” ὀνομασθέντα παρά τε τοῦ μεγάλου Παύλου καὶ πρὸ τούτου παρὰ τοῦ προφήτου Δαβίδ. ὁ μὲν γάρ φησιν: Εὐλογεῖτε τὸν κύριον πᾶσαι αἱ δυνάμεις αὐτοῦ, ποιοῦντες τὸ θέλημα αὐτοῦ, ὁ δὲ Ἠσαΐας ἀντὶ τοῦ ”εὐλογεῖτε„ εἰπεῖν τὰ ῥήματα τῆς εὐλογίας ἀνέγραψεν: Ἅγιος ἅγιος ἅγιος κύριος Σαβαώθ, πλήρης πᾶσα ἡ γῆ τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. τὸ δὲ λειτουργοὺς εἶναι τὰς δυνάμεις ταύτας « τὰς » ποιούσας τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ διὰ τῆς γενομένης ἁμαρτιῶν καθάρσεως κατὰ τὸ βούλημα τοῦ ἀποστείλαντος παρ' ἑνὸς τῶν Σεραφὶμ ὑπῃνίξατο: αὕτη γάρ ἐστιν ἡ λειτουργία τῶν πνευμάτων τούτων, ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τῶν σῳζομένων ἐκπέμπεσθαι. ἅ μοι δοκεῖ κατανοήσας ὁ θεῖος ἀπόστολος καὶ μαθὼν ὅτι τὸ αὐτὸ πρᾶγμα παρὰ τῶν δύο προφητῶν ἐν διαφόροις ταῖς προσηγορίαις σημαίνεται, τὴν γνωριμωτάτην τῶν φωνῶν ἐκλεξάμενος „δυνάμεις” τὰ Σεραφὶμ ὠνόμασεν, ὡς μηδεμίαν ἀφορμὴν τοῖς συκοφάνταις καταλελεῖφθαι τοῦ κατὰ τὸ ἴσον τούτων ἑνὸς καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν τῷ καταλόγῳ τῆς κτίσεως περιειλῆφθαι λέγειν. τὰ μὲν γὰρ εἴρηται, καθὼς ἀποδέδεικται, τὰ δὲ σεσιώπηται, καθὼς ἔστιν ἐκ τῶν κατειλεγμένων ὑπὸ τοῦ Παύλου μαθεῖν τοῦ πᾶσαν μὲν πληθυντικῶς ἀπαριθμησαμένου τὴν κτίσιν; τῶν δὲ μοναδικῶς λεγομένων οὐδενὸς μνημονεύσαντος. τοῦτο γὰρ ἴδιον τῆς ἁγίας τριάδος ἐστί, τὸ μοναχῶς ἐξαγγέλλεσθαι, εἷς πατὴρ καὶ εἷς υἱὸς καὶ ἓν πνεῦμα ἅγιον. τὰ δὲ εἰρημένα πάντα ἐν πλήθει κατείλεκται, ἀρχαὶ καὶ ἐξουσίαι καὶ κυριότητες καὶ δυνάμεις, ὡς μηδεμίαν παρέχειν ὑπόνοιαν τοῦ ἓν τούτων εἶναι καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον.
Ἀλλὰ Παῦλος μὲν σιωπᾷ τὰ ἀπόρρητα, καὶ καλῶς ποιεῖ: οἶδε γὰρ ἀκούειν μὲν ἐν παραδείσῳ τὰ ἄρρητα ῥήματα, φείδεσθαι δὲ τῆς τῶν ἀνεκφωνήτων ἐξαγορεύσεως, ὅταν περὶ τῶν κατωτέρων ποιῆται τὸν λόγον. οἱ δὲ τῆς ἀληθείας πολέμιοι καὶ τῶν ἀρρήτων κατατολμῶσι, τὸ μεγαλεῖον τοῦ πνεύματος τῷ ταπεινῷ τῆς κτίσεως καθυβρίζοντες, ὥσπερ οὐκ ἀκηκοότες, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ θεὸς λόγος παραδιδοὺς τοῖς μαθηταῖς τὸ τῆς θεογνωσίας μυστήριον ἐν ὀνόματι πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος τοῖς ἀναγεννωμένοις εἶπε τὴν ζωὴν καὶ συμπληροῦσθαι καὶ παραγίνεσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦ συντάξαι τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἑαυτῷ τῆς περὶ τὴν κτίσιν ὑπονοίας τὸ πνεῦμα ἐχώρισεν: ὡς ἐξ ἀμφοτέρων εὐσεβῆ καὶ πρέπουσαν γίνεσθαι περὶ αὐτοῦ τὴν ὑπόληψιν, Παύλου μὲν ἐν τῇ μνήμῃ τῆς κτίσεως τὴν τοῦ πνεύματος φύσιν ἀποσιγήσαντος, τοῦ δὲ κυρίου ἐν τῇ μνήμῃ τῆς ζωοποιοῦ δυνάμεως τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ἑαυτῷ συναρμόσαντος. οὕτως ἡμῖν ὁ λόγος διὰ τῆς ἁγίας γραφῆς ὁδηγούμενος ὑπερτίθησι μὲν τῆς κτίσεως τόν τε μονογενῆ καὶ τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον, κατὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ σωτῆρος ἀπόφασιν ἐν τῇ μακαρίᾳ τε καὶ ζωοποιῷ καὶ ἀκτίστῳ φύσει θεωρεῖν διὰ πίστεως ὑποτίθεται: ὥστε τὸ ἄνω τῆς κτίσεως καὶ τῆς πρωτευούσης καὶ διὰ πάντων τελείας φύσεως εἶναι πιστευόμενον μηδενὶ τρόπῳ τὸν τῆς ἐλαττώσεως παραδέχεσθαι λόγον, κἂν ὁ τῆς αἱρέσεως προστάτης περικόπτῃ τὸ ἀόριστον, ἐν τῇ τοῦ ἐλάττονος ἐπινοίᾳ οἱονεὶ διακολοβῶν καὶ συστέλλων τῆς θείας οὐσίας τὴν τελειότητα ἐν τῷ τὸ μεῖζον καὶ τὸ ἔλαττον αὐτοῖς ἐνθεωρεῖν διορίζεσθαι.