13. It remains that we inquire what is the “image of His goodness;” and here, I think, we must understand the same thing which we expressed a little ago, in speaking of the image formed by the mirror. For He is the primal goodness, doubtless, out of which the Son is born, who, being in all respects the image of the Father, may certainly also be called with propriety the image of His goodness. For there is no other second goodness existing in the Son, save that which is in the Father. And therefore also the Saviour Himself rightly says in the Gospel, “There is none good save one only, God the Father,” that by such an expression it may be understood that the Son is not of a different goodness, but of that only which exists in the Father, of whom He is rightly termed the image, because He proceeds from no other source but from that primal goodness, lest there might appear to be in the Son a different goodness from that which is in the Father. Nor is there any dissimilarity or difference of goodness in the Son. And therefore it is not to be imagined that there is a kind of blasphemy, as it were, in the words, “There is none good save one only, God the Father,” as if thereby it may be supposed to be denied that either Christ or the Holy Spirit was good. But, as we have already said, the primal goodness is to be understood as residing in God the Father, from whom both the Son is born and the Holy Spirit proceeds, retaining within them, without any doubt, the nature of that goodness which is in the source whence they are derived. And if there be any other things which in Scripture are called good, whether angel, or man, or servant, or treasure, or a good heart, or a good tree, all these are so termed catachrestically,[72] having in them an accidental, not an essential goodness. But it would require both much time and labour to collect together all the titles of the Son of God, such _e.g._ as the true light, or the door, or the righteousness, or the sanctification, or the redemption, and countless others; and to show for what reasons each one of them is so given. Satisfied, therefore, with what we have already advanced, we go on with our inquiries into those other matters which follow. Footnote 41: Prov. viii. 22-25. The reading in the text differs considerably from that of the Vulgate. Footnote 42: Col. i. 15. Footnote 43: 1 Cor. i. 24. Footnote 44: Aliquid insubstantivum. Footnote 45: Substantialiter. Footnote 46: Ad punctum alicujus momenti. Footnote 47: Omnis virtus ac deformatio futuræ creaturæ. Footnote 48: This work is mentioned by Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. B. iii. ch. iii. and xxv., as among the spurious writings current in the church. The _Acts of Paul and Thecla_ was a different work from the _Acts of Paul_. The words quoted, “Hic est verbum animal vivens,” seem to be a corruption from Heb. iv. 12, ζῶν γὰρ ὁ λόγος τοῦ Θεοῦ. Footnote 49: Or, “and the Word was God.” Footnote 50: