Chapter III.—The Importance of the Subject. The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Catholic doctrine, that the Son is proper to the Father’s substance, and eternal. Restatement of Arianism in contrast, that He is a creature with a beginning: the controversy comes to this issue, whether one whom we are to believe in as God, can be so in name only, and is merely a creature. What pretence then for being indifferent in the controversy? The Arians rely on state patronage, and dare not avow their tenets.

8. If then the use of certain phrases of divine Scripture changes, in their opinion, the blasphemy of the Thalia into reverent language, of course they ought also to deny Christ with the present Jews, when they see how they study the Law and the Prophets; perhaps too they will deny the Law33    de Syn. 33.    κυλιόμενοι, Orat. iii. 16. and the Prophets like Manichees34    Faustus, in August. contr. Faust. ii. 1. admits the Gospels (vid. Beausobre Manich. t. i. p. 291, &c.), but denies that they were written by the reputed authors. ibid. xxxii. 2. but nescio quibus Semi-judæis. ibid. xxxiii. 3. Accordingly they thought themselves at liberty to reject or correct parts of them. They rejected many of the facts, e.g. our Lord’s nativity, circumcision, baptism, temptation, &c. ibid. xxxii. 6.    Prov. viii. 22. Cf. i. 53 and infr. 19–72., because the latter read some portions of the Gospels. If such bewilderment and empty speaking be from ignorance, Scripture will teach them, that the devil, the author of heresies, because of the ill savour which attaches to evil, borrows Scripture language, as a cloak wherewith to sow the ground with his own poison also, and to seduce the simple. Thus he deceived Eve; thus he framed former heresies; thus he persuaded Arius at this time to make a show of speaking against those former ones, that he might introduce his own without observation. And yet, after all, the man of craft did not escape. For being irreligious towards the Word of God, he lost his all at once35    de Decr. 1, note 6.    Heb. iii. 2., and betrayed to all men his ignorance of other heresies too36    [A note on the intimate mutual connexion of all heresies is omitted here.]    Vid. infr. note on 35.; and having not a particle of truth in his belief, does but pretend to it. For how can he speak truth concerning the Father, who denies the Son, that reveals concerning Him? or how can he be orthodox concerning the Spirit, while he speaks profanely of the Word that supplies the Spirit? and who will trust him concerning the Resurrection, denying, as he does, Christ for us the first-begotten from the dead? and how shall he not err in respect to His incarnate presence, who is simply ignorant of the Son’s genuine and true generation from the Father? For thus, the former Jews also, denying the Word, and saying, ‘We have no king but Cæsar37    Joh. xix. 15.    Cf. Rom. xi. 32,’ were forthwith stripped of all they had, and forfeited the light of the Lamp, the odour of ointment, knowledge of prophecy, and the Truth itself; till now they understand nothing, but are walking as in darkness. For who was ever yet a hearer of such a doctrine38    de Decr. 7, note 2.    τῶν νῦν ᾽Ιουδαίων, means literally ‘the Jews of this day,’ as here and Orat. i. 8. 10. 38. Orat. ii. 1. b. iii. 28. c. But elsewhere this and similar phrases as distinctly mean the Arians, being used in contrast to the Jews. Their likeness to the Jews is drawn out, Orat. iii. 27. de Decr. i.? or whence or from whom did the abettors and hirelings39    δωροδόκοι, and so κέρδος τῆς φιλοχρηματίας, infr. §53. He mentions προστασίας φίλων, §10. And so S. Hilary speaks of the exemptions from taxes which Constantius granted the Clergy as a bribe to Arianize; contr. Const. 10. And again, of resisting Constantius as hostem blandientem, qui non dorsa cædit, sed ventrem palpat, non proscribit ad vitam, sed ditat in mortem, non caput gladio desecat, sed animum auro occidit. ibid. 5. vid. Coustant. in loc. Liberius says the same, Theod H. E. ii. 13. And S. Gregory Naz. speaks of φιλοχρύσους μᾶλλον ἢ φιλοχρίστους. Orat. 21. 21. On the other hand, Ep. Æg. 22, Athan. contrasts the Arians with the Meletians, as not influenced by secular views. [Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c. (2).]    ἐρωτῶντες ἐμανθάνον; and so μαθὼν ἐδιδάσκεν, Orat. iii. 9. de Decr. 7. supr. p. 13, note a. of the heresy gain it? who thus expounded to them when they were at school40    de Syn. §3 and 9.    John i. 14.? who told them, ‘Abandon the worship of the creation, and then draw near and worship a creature and a work41    Vid. de Decr. 1. note. This consideration, as might be expected, is insisted on by the Fathers. vid. Cyril. Dial. iv. p. 511, &c. v. p. 566. Greg. Naz. 40, 42; Hil. Trin. viii. 28; Ambros. de fid. i. n. 69 and 104.    Acts ii. 36.?’ But if they themselves own that they have heard it now for the first time, how can they deny that this heresy is foreign, and not from our fathers42    Ib. 4, note 8.    Prov. viii. 22.? But what is not from our fathers, but has come to light in this day, how can it be but that of which the blessed Paul43    1 Tim. iv. 1, 2; Tit. i. 14.    Heb. i. 4. has foretold, that ‘in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, in the hypocrisy of liars; cauterized in their own conscience, and turning from the truth44    This passage is commonly taken by the Fathers to refer to the Oriental sects of the early centuries, who fulfilled one or other of those conditions which it specifies. It is quoted against the Marcionists by Clement. Strom. iii. 6. Of the Carpocratians apparently, Iren. Hær. i. 25; Epiph. Hær. 27. 5. Of the Valentinians, Epiph. Hær. 31. 34. Of the Montanists and others, ibid. 48. 8. Of the Saturnilians (according to Huet.) Origen in Matt. xx. 16. Of apostolic heresies, Cyril. Cat. iv. 27. Of Marcionites, Valentinians, and Manichees, Chrysost. de Virg. 5. Of Gnostics and Manichees, Theod. Hær. ii. præf. Of Encratites, ibid. v. fin. Of Eutyches, Ep. Anon. 190 (apud Garner. Diss. v. Theod. p. 901. Pseudo-Justin seems to consider it fulfilled in the Catholics of the fifth century, as being Anti-Pelagians. Quæst. 22. vid. Bened. note in loc. Besides Athanasius, no early author occurs to the writer of this, by whom it is referred to the Arians, cf. Depos. Ar. supr. p. 71, note 29.    Phil. ii. 7.?’

9. For, behold, we take divine Scripture, and thence discourse with freedom of the religious Faith, and set it up as a light upon its candlestick, saying:—Very Son of the Father, natural and genuine, proper to His essence, Wisdom Only-begotten, and Very and Only Word of God is He; not a creature or work, but an offspring proper to the Father’s essence. Wherefore He is very God, existing one45    [This is the only occurrence of the word ὁμοούσιος in these three Discourses.]    Heb. iii. 1, 2; Sent. D. 11. in essence with the very Father; while other beings, to whom He said, ‘I said ye are Gods46    Ps. lxxxii. 6.    By λαυβάνοντες παρ᾽ αὐτῶν τὸ λῆμμα, ‘accepting the proposition they offer,’ he means that he is engaged in going through certain texts brought against the Catholic view, instead of bringing his own proofs, vid. Orat. i. 37. Yet after all it is commonly his way, as here, to start with some general exposition of the Catholic doctrine which the Arian sense of the text in question opposes, and thus to create a prejudice or proof against the latter. vid. Orat. i. 10. 38. 40. init. 53. d. ii. 5. 12. init. 32–34. 35. 44. init. which refers to the whole discussion, 18–43. 73. 77. iii. 18. init. 36. init. 42. 54. 51. init. &c. On the other hand he makes the ecclesiastical sense the rule of interpretation, τούτῳ [τῷ σκοπῷ, the general drift of Scripture doctrine] ὥσπερ κανόνι χρησάμενοι προσέχωμεν τῇ ἀνάγνωσει τῆς θεοπνεύστου γραφὴς, iii. 28. fin. This illustrates what he means when he says that certain texts have a ‘good,’ ‘pious,’ ‘orthodox’ sense, i.e. they can be interpreted (in spite, if so be, of appearances) in harmony with the Regula Fidei. vid. infr. §43, note; also notes on 35. and iii. 58.,’ had this grace from the Father, only by participation47    de Decr. §14 fin.; de Syn. §51.    §22, note. of the Word, through the Spirit. For He is the expression of the Father’s Person, and Light from Light, and Power, and very Image of the Father’s essence. For this too the Lord has said, ‘He that hath seen Me, hath seen the Father48    John xiv. 9.    i.e. in any true sense of the word ‘image;’ or, so that He may be accounted the ἀπαράλλακτος εἴκων of the Father, vid. de Syn. 23, note 1. The ancient Fathers consider, that the Divine Sonship is the very consequence (so to speak) of the necessity that exists, that One who is Infinite Perfection should subsist again in a Perfect Image of Himself, which is the doctrine to which Athan. goes on to allude, and the idea of which (he says) is prior to that of creation. A redundatio in imaginem is synonymous with a generatio Filii. Cf. Thomassin, de Trin. 19. 1..’ And He ever was and is and never was not. For the Father being everlasting, His Word and His Wisdom must be everlasting49    de Decr. 15, note 6.    For καρπογόνος ἡ οὐσία, de Decr. 15. n. 9. γεννητικὸς, Orat. iii. 66. iv. 4. fin. ἄγονος. i. 14. fin. Sent. Dion. 15. 19. ἡ φυσικὴ γονιμότης, Damasc. F. O. i. 8. p. 133. ἄκαρπος, Cyr. Thes. p. 45. Epiph. Hær. 65 p. 609. b. Vid. the γέννησις and the κτίσις contrasted together Orat. i. 29. de Decr. 11. n. 6, de Syn. 51, n. 4. The doctrine in the text is shortly expressed, infr. Orat. iv. 4 fin. εἰ ἄγονος καὶ ἀνενέργητος. On the other hand, what have these persons to shew us from the infamous Thalia? Or, first of all, let them read it themselves, and copy the tone of the writer; at least the mockery which they will encounter from others may instruct them how low they have fallen; and then let them proceed to explain themselves. For what can they say from it, but that ‘God was not always a Father, but became so afterwards; the Son was not always, for He was not before His generation; He is not from the Father, but He, as others, has come into subsistence out of nothing; He is not proper to the Father’s essence, for He is a creature and work?’ And ‘Christ is not very God, but He, as others, was made God by participation; the Son has not exact knowledge of the Father, nor does the Word see the Father perfectly; and neither exactly understands nor knows the Father. He is not the very and only Word of the Father, but is in name only called Word and Wisdom, and is called by grace Son and Power. He is not unalterable, as the Father is, but alterable in nature, as the creatures, and He comes short of apprehending the perfect knowledge of the Father.’ Wonderful this heresy, not plausible even, but making speculations against Him that is, that He be not, and everywhere putting forward blasphemy for reverent language! Were any one, after inquiring into both sides, to be asked, whether of the two he would follow in faith, or whether of the two spoke fitly of God,—or rather let them say themselves, these abettors of irreligion, what, if a man be asked concerning God (for ‘the Word was God’), it were fit to answer50    That is, ‘Let them tell us, is it right to predicate this or to predicate that of God (of one who is God), for such is the Word, viz. that He was from eternity or was created,’ &c., &c.    Orat. iii. 59, &c.. For from this one question the whole case on both sides may be determined, what is fitting to say,—He was, or He was not; always, or before His birth; eternal, or from this and from then; true, or by adoption, and from participation and in idea51    κατ᾽ ἐπίνοιαν, vid. Orat. ii. §38.    Orat. iii. 63. c.; to call Him one of things originated, or to unite Him to the Father; to consider Him unlike the Father in essence, or like and proper to Him; a creature, or Him through whom the creatures were originated; that He is the Father’s Word, or that there is another word beside Him, and that by this other He was originated, and by another wisdom; and that He is only named Wisdom and Word, and is become a partaker of this wisdom, and second to it?

10. Which of the two theologies sets forth our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Son of the Father, this which you vomited forth, or that which we have spoken and maintain from the Scriptures? If the Saviour be not God, nor Word, nor Son, you shall have leave to say what you will, and so shall the Gentiles, and the present Jews. But if He be Word of the Father and true Son, and God from God, and ‘over all blessed for ever52    Rom. ix. 5.    ἐνούσιος, infr. 28.,’ is it not becoming to obliterate and blot out those other phrases and that Arian Thalia, as but a pattern of evil, a store of all irreligion, into which, whoso falls, ‘knoweth not that giants perish with her, and reacheth the depths of Hades53    Prov. ix. 18. LXX.    §1, note 13.?’ This they know themselves, and in their craft they conceal it, not having the courage to speak out, but uttering something else54    de Decr. 6. note 5; de Syn. 32.    1 Kings i. 19.. For if they speak, a condemnation will follow; and if they be suspected, proofs from Scripture will be cast55    de Decr. 26, note 6.    ver. 26. at them from every side. Wherefore, in their craft, as children of this world, after feeding their so-called lamp from the wild olive, and fearing lest it should soon be quenched (for it is said, ‘the light of the wicked shall be put out56    Job xviii. 5.    Ps. cxvi. 16.,’) they hide it under the bushel57    Ep. Æg. 18.    πολλάκις ἀπολωλέναι δίκαιοι, vid. infr. §28. of their hypocrisy, and make a different profession, and boast of patronage of friends and authority of Constantius, that what with their hypocrisy and their professions, those who come to them may be kept from seeing how foul their heresy is. Is it not detestable even in this, that it dares not speak out, but is kept hid by its own friends, and fostered as serpents are? for from what sources have they got together these words? or from whom have they received what they venture to say58    §8, note 5.    Prov. xx. 23.? Not any one man can they specify who has supplied it. For who is there in all mankind, Greek or Barbarian, who ventures to rank among creatures One whom he confesses the while to be God and says, that He was not till He was made? or who is there, who to the God in whom he has put faith, refuses to give credit, when He says, ‘This is My beloved Son59    Matt. iii. 17.    Apol. c. Ar. 36.,’ on the pretence that He is not a Son, but a creature? rather, such madness would rouse an universal indignation. Nor does Scripture afford them any pretext; for it has been often shewn, and it shall be shewn now, that their doctrine is alien to the divine oracles. Therefore, since all that remains is to say that from the devil came their mania (for of such opinions he alone is sower60    de Decr. 2, note 6.    Is. xxxviii. 19, LXX.), proceed we to resist him—for with him is our real conflict, and they are but instruments;—that, the Lord aiding us, and the enemy, as he is wont, being overcome with arguments, they may be put to shame, when they see him without resource who sowed this heresy in them, and may learn, though late, that, as being Arians, they are not Christians.

Εἰ μὲν οὖν, διὰ τὸ λέξεις τινὰς τῆς θείας Γραφῆς ἐν τῇ Θαλείᾳ γράψαι, νομίζουσι καὶ τὰς βλα σφημίας εὐφημίας εἶναι, πάντως που καὶ τοὺς νῦν Ἰουδαίους ὁρῶντες ἀναγινώσκοντας τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας, ἀρνήσονται καὶ αὐτοὶ διὰ τοῦτο σὺν ἐκείνοις τὸν Χριστόν· ἀκούοντες δὲ τάχα καὶ Μα νιχαίων λεγόντων μέρη τινὰ τῶν Εὐαγγελίων ἀρνήσονται σὺν αὐτοῖς τὸν νόμον καὶ τοὺς προφήτας. Εἰ δὲ ἀγνοοῦντες οὕτω χειμάζονται καὶ τοιαῦτα βαττο λογοῦσι, μαθέτωσαν ἀπὸ τῶν Γραφῶν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ τὰς αἱρέσεις ἐπινοήσας διάβολος διὰ τὴν ἰδίαν τῆς κακίας δυσωδίαν κιχρᾶται τὰς λέξεις τῶν Γραφῶν, ἵνα, αὐτὰς ἔχων ἐπικάλυμμα, τὸν ἴδιον ἰὸν ἐπισπεί ρας, ἀπατήσῃ τοὺς ἀκεραίους. Οὕτω τὴν Εὔαν ἠπά τησεν· οὕτω καὶ τὰς ἄλλας αἱρέσεις ἔπλασε· οὕτω καὶ νῦν Ἄρειον ἔπεισεν εἰπεῖν καὶ σχηματίσα σθαι δῆθεν κατὰ τῶν αἱρέσεων, ἵνα λάθῃ τὴν ἰδίαν ἐπιβάλλων αἵρεσιν. Καὶ ὅμως οὐκ ἔλαθεν οὐδὲ οὕτως ὁ πανοῦργος· εἰς γὰρ τὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγον ἀσε βήσας. πάντων εὐθὺς ἐξέπεσε, καὶ δέδεικται πᾶσιν, ὅτι καὶ περὶ τῶν ἄλλων ἠγνόησε, καὶ μηδὲν ὅλως ἀληθὲς φρονῶν ὑποκρίνεται. Πῶς γὰρ ἂν ἀληθεύσῃ περὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ τὸν Υἱὸν ἀρνούμενος, τὸν ἀποκα λύπτοντα περὶ αὐτοῦ; Ἢ πῶς περὶ τοῦ Πνεύματος ὀρθὰ φρονήσει, δυσφημῶν εἰς τὸν τοῦτο χορη γοῦντα λόγον; Τίς δὲ πιστεύσει λέγοντι τούτῳ περὶ ἀναστάσεως, ἀρνουμένῳ τὸν ἐκ νεκρῶν δι' ἡμᾶς πρω τότοκον γενόμενον Χριστόν; Πῶς δὲ οὐκ, ἄντι κρυς ἀγνοήσας τὴν ἐκ Πατρὸς τοῦ Υἱοῦ γνησίαν καὶ ἀληθινὴν γέννησιν, πλανηθήσεται καὶ περὶ τῆς ἐνσάρ κου παρουσίας αὐτοῦ; Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ οἱ τότε Ἰου δαῖοι, ἀρνησάμενοι τὸν Λόγον, καὶ λέγοντες, Οὐκ ἔχομεν βασιλέα εἰ μὴ Καίσαρα, πάντων ἀθρόως ἀφῃρέθησαν, καὶ γεγόνασιν ἔρημοι φωτὸς λύχνου, ὀσμῆς μύρου, προφητείας γνώσεως, καὶ αὐτῆς τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ νῦν οὐδὲν συνιέντες, ὡς ἐν σκότῳ περι πατοῦντές εἰσι. Τίς γὰρ ἤκουσε πώποτε τοιαῦτα; Ἢ πόθεν ἢ παρὰ τίνος οἱ κόλακες καὶ δωροδόκοι τῆς αἱ ρέσεως ἤκουσαν τοιαῦτα; Τίς, ὅτε κατηχοῦντο, τοι αῦτα λελάληκεν αὐτοῖς; Τίς αὐτοῖς εἴρηκεν, ὅτι, τὴν εἰς τὴν κτίσιν λατρείαν ἀφέντες, κτίσματι καὶ ποιήματι πάλιν προσέρχεσθε λατρεύειν; Εἰ δὲ καὶ αὐτοὶ πρῶτον νῦν ὁμολογοῦσιν ἀκηκοέναι τὰ τοι αῦτα, μὴ ἀρνείσθωσαν ἀλλοτρίαν καὶ μὴ ἐκ πα τέρων εἶναι τὴν αἵρεσιν ταύτην. Τὸ δὲ μὴ ἐκ πατέ ρων, ἀλλὰ νῦν ἐφευρεθὲν, τί ἂν εἴη ἕτερον ἡ περὶ οὗ προείρηκεν ὁ μακάριος Παῦλος· Ἐν ὑστέ ροις καιροῖς ἀποστήσονταί τινες τῆς ὑγιαινούσης πίστεως, προσέχοντες πνεύμασι πλάνης καὶ διδασκαλίαις δαιμονίων, ἐν ὑποκρίσει ψευδολό γων, κεκαυτηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν, καὶ ἀποστρεφομένων τὴν ἀλήθειαν. Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἡμεῖς μὲν ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν παῥησιαζόμεθα περὶ τῆς εὐσεβοῦς πίστεως, καὶ ὡς λύ χνον ἐπὶ τῆς λυχνίας τιθέαμεν λέγοντες· Υἱὸς ἀληθινὸς φύσει καὶ γνήσιός ἐστι τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ, Σοφία μονογενὴς, καὶ Λόγος ἀλη θινὸς καὶ μόνος τοῦ Θεοῦ οὗτός ἐστιν· οὐκ ἔστι κτί σμα οὔτε ποίημα, ἀλλ' ἴδιον τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας γέννημα. ∆ιὸ Θεός ἐστιν ἀληθινὸς, ἀληθινοῦ Πατρὸς ὁμοούσιος ὑπάρχων. Τὰ δ' ἄλλα, οἷς εἶπεν, Ἐγὼ εἶπα· Θεοί ἐστε, μόνον μετοχῇ τοῦ Λόγου διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος ταύτην ἔχουσι τὴν χάριν παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός. Χαρακτὴρ γάρ ἐστι τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑποστά σεως, καὶ φῶς ἐκ φωτὸς, καὶ δύναμις καὶ εἰκὼν ἀλη θινὴ τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας. Τοῦτο γὰρ πάλιν εἶπεν ὁ Κύριος· Ὁ ἐμὲ ἑωρακὼς ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν καὶ ἔστι, καὶ οὐδέποτε οὐκ ἦν. Ἀϊδίου γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀΐδιος ἂν εἴη καὶ ὁ τούτου Λόγος καὶ ἡ Σοφία. Αὐτοὶ δὲ τί ἄρα ἡμῖν ἐκ τῆς παν εγκλήτου Θαλίας προφέρουσιν; Ἢ πρῶτον ἀναγνώ τωσαν αὐτὴν, μιμούμενοι τὸ ἦθος τοῦ γράψαντος, ἵνα κἂν παρ' ἑτέρων χλευαζόμενοι μάθωσιν ἐν ποίῳ κεῖν ται πτώματι, καὶ οὕτω λοιπὸν λεγέτωσαν. Τί δ' ἂν εἴποιεν ἐξ αὐτῆς, ἢ ὅτι «Οὐκ ἀεὶ ὁ Θεὸς Πα τὴρ ἦν, ἀλλ' ὕστερον γέγονεν· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἦν ὁ Υἱὸς, οὐ γὰρ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός· ἀλλ' ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων ὑπέστη καὶ αὐτός. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρός· κτίσμα γάρ ἐστι καὶ ποίημα. Καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀληθινὸς Θεὸς ὁ Χριστὸς, ἀλλὰ μετοχῇ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐθεοποιήθη. Οὐκ οἶδε τὸν Πατέρα ἀκριβῶς ὁ Υἱὸς, οὔτε ὁρᾷ ὁ Λόγος τὸν Πατέρα τελείως, καὶ οὔτε συνιεῖ, οὔτε γινώσκει ἀκριβῶς ὁ Λόγος τὸν Πατέρα· οὐκ ἔστιν ὁ ἀληθινὸς καὶ μόνος αὐτὸς τοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγος, ἀλλ' ὀνόματι μόνον λέγεται Λό γος καὶ Σοφία, καὶ χάριτι λέγεται Υἱὸς καὶ δύναμις. Οὐκ ἔστιν ἄτρεπτος, ὡς ὁ Πατὴρ, ἀλλὰ τρεπτός ἐστι φύσει, ὡς τὰ κτίσματα, καὶ λείπει αὐτῷ εἰς κατάληψιν τοῦ γνῶναι τελείως τὸν Πατέρα.» Θαυμαστή γε ἡ αἵρεσις μηδὲ τὸ πιθανὸν ἔχουσα, ἀλλὰ καὶ εἰς τὸ μὴ εἶναι κατὰ τοῦ ὄντος φανταζομένη, καὶ ἀντὶ εὐφημίας δυσφημίας διόλου προβαλλομένη. Εἴ τις ἄρα, τὰ παρ' ἀμφοτέρων ἐξετάσας, ἐρωτηθείη τὴν ὁποτέρου πίστιν ἂν ἕλοιτο, ἢ τὰ τίνος ἂν εἴποι ῥή ματα πρέποντα εἶναι Θεῷ· μᾶλλον δὲ καὶ εἰπάτωσαν αὐτοὶ οἱ τῆς ἀσεβείας κόλακες, τί πρέπει περὶ Θεοῦ (Θεὸς γὰρ ἦν ὁ Λόγος·) ἐρωτώμενον ἀποκρίνασθαι, ἀπὸ γὰρ τούτου καὶ τὸ ὅλον ἑκατέρων τῶν προβληθέντων γνωσθήσεται τί πρέπει λέγειν, τὸ ἦν, ἢ τὸ οὐκ ἦν· τὸ ἀεὶ, ἢ τὸ πρὶν γενέσθαι· τὸ ἀΐδιον, ἢ τὸ ἀφ' οὗ καὶ ἐξότε· ἀληθινὸν, ἢ θέσει καὶ μετοχῇ καὶ κατ' ἐπίνοιαν· τῶν γενητῶν ἕνα λέγειν αὐτὸν, ἢ τῷ Πατρὶ συνάπτειν αὐτόν· ἀνόμοιον αὐτὸν εἶναι κατ' οὐσίαν τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἢ ὅμοιον καὶ ἴδιον τοῦ Πα τρὸς εἶναι· κτίσμα εἶναι, ἢ δι' αὐτοῦ τὰ κτίσματα γεγενῆσθαι· αὐτὸν εἶναι τὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον, ἢ ἕτερον παρὰ τοῦτον, καὶ δι' ἐκείνου τοῦτον γεγενῆ σθαι καὶ δι' ἄλλης σοφίας· καὶ τοῦτον ὀνόματι μόνον Σοφίαν καὶ Λόγον κεκλῆσθαι, κἀκείνης τῆς σο φίας τοῦτον μέτοχον καὶ δεύτερον γεγενῆσθαι. Τὰ τίνων ἄρα ῥήματα θεολογεῖ καὶ δεικνύει Θεὸν εἶναι καὶ Υἱὸν τοῦ Πατρὸς τὸν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστόν; Ταῦθ' ἅπερ ὑμεῖς ἐξημέσατε, ἢ ἅπερ ἡμεῖς ἐκ τῶν Γραφῶν εἰρήκαμεν καὶ λέγομεν; Εἰ μὲν οὖν οὐκ ἔστι Θεὸς οὐδὲ Λόγος οὐδὲ Υἱὸς ὁ Σωτὴρ, ἐξέστω λέγειν, ὥσπερ τοῖς Ἕλλησι καὶ τοῖς νῦν Ἰουδαίοις, οὕτω καὶ ὑμῖν, ἃ βούλεσθε· εἰ δὲ Λόγος τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱὸς ἀληθινός ἐστι, καὶ ἐκ Θεοῦ Θεός ἐστι, καὶ ἐπὶ πάντων εὐλογημένος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶ νας, πῶς οὐκ ἄξιον ἀφανίσαι καὶ ἀπαλεῖψαι τά τε ἄλλα ῥήματα καὶ τὴν Ἀρειανὴν Θαλείαν, ὡς εἰ κόνα κακῶν καὶ πάσης ἀσεβείας γέμουσαν; εἰς ἣν ἐμπίπτων οὐκ οἶδεν, ὅτι γηγενεῖς παρ' αὐτῇ ὄλλυνται, καὶ ἐπὶ πέταυρον ᾅδου συναντᾷ. Καὶ τοῦτο ἴσασι καὶ αὐτοὶ, καὶ ὡς πανοῦργοι κρύπτουσι, μὴ θαῤῥοῦντες ἐκλαλεῖν αὐτὰ, ἀλλ' ἕτερα φθεγγόμενοι παρὰ ταῦτα. Ἐάν τε γὰρ εἴπωσι, καταγνωσθήσονται· ἐάν τε ὑπονοηθῶσι, βληθήσονται παρὰ πάντων τοῖς ἐκ τῶν Γραφῶν ἐλέγχοις. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο γοῦν ὡς υἱοὶ τοῦ αἰῶνος τούτου ὄντες, πανούργως τὸν νομιζόμενον ἑαυτῶν λύχνον ἅψαντες ἐκ τῆς ἀγριελαίου, καὶ φοβούμενοι μὴ ταχέως ἀποσβεσθῇ, (Φῶς γὰρ, φησὶν, ἀσε βῶν σβέννυται·) τοῦτον μὲν κρύπτουσιν ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον τῆς ὑποκρίσεως, ἕτερα δὲ φθέγγονται, καὶ προστασίας φίλων, καὶ Κωνσταντίου φόβον ἐπαγγέλ λονται, ἵν' οἱ εἰσερχόμενοι πρὸς αὐτοὺς ὑπὸ τῆς ὑπο κρίσεως καὶ τῆς ἐπαγγελίας μὴ βλέπωσι τὴν τῆς αἱ ρέσεως ῥυπαρίαν. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἀξία καὶ κατὰ τοῦτο πάλιν μίσους ἡ αἵρεσις, ὅπουγε καὶ παρ' αὐτῶν τῶν ἰδίων ὡς μὴ ἔχουσα παῤῥησίαν κρύπτεται, καὶ ὡς ὄφις θάλπεται; Πόθεν γὰρ ἑαυτοῖς συνεφόρη σαν τὰ ῥημάτια ταῦτα; Ἢ παρὰ τίνος ἄρα λα βόντες, τοιαῦτα τετολμήκασι λέγειν; Ἀνθρώπων μὲν οὖν οὐδένα ἂν εἴποιεν τὸν ταῦτα παρασχόντα. Τίς γάρ ἐστιν ἀνθρώπων ἢ Ἕλλην ἢ βάρβαρος, ὅστις ὃν ὁμολογεῖ Θεὸν, τοῦτον τολμᾷ λέγειν ἕνα εἶναι τῶν κτισμάτων, καὶ, Οὐκ ἦν πρὶν ποιηθῇ; ἢ τίς ἐστιν, ὅστις ᾧ πεπίστευκε Θεῷ, ἀπιστεῖ λέγοντι, Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητὸς, φάσκων, ὅτι οὐκ ἔστιν υἱὸς, ἀλλὰ ποίημα; Πλέον γὰρ ἀγανακτήσουσι πάντες κατ' αὐτῶν τοιαῦτα μαινομένων. Ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ἐκ τῶν Γραφῶν ἔχουσι τὰς προφάσεις. Ἐδείχθη γὰρ πολλάκις, δειχθήσεται δὲ καὶ νῦν ἀλλότρια ταῦτα τῶν θείων λογίων. Οὐκοῦν ἐπειδὴ λείπει λοιπὸν εἰ πεῖν, ὅτι παρὰ τοῦ διαβόλου λαβόντες ἐμάνησαν· (τούτων γὰρ ἐκεῖνος μόνος ἐστὶ σπορεύς·) φέρε, πρὸς αὐτὸν ἀντιστῶμεν· πρὸς ἐκεῖνον γάρ ἐστιν ἡμῖν διὰ τούτων ἡ πάλη· ἵνα, τοῦ Κυρίου βοηθοῦν τος, κἀκείνου συνήθως πίπτοντος τοῖς ἐλέγχοις, αἰσχυνθῶσιν οὗτοι, βλέποντες ἀποροῦντα τὸν ἐπι σπείραντα τὴν αἵρεσιν αὐτοῖς, καὶ μάθωσι κἂν ὀψέ ποτε, ὅτι, Ἀρειανοὶ ὄντες, οὐκ εἰσὶ Χριστιανοί.