Against the Arians. (Orationes contra Arianos IV.)

 Four Discourses Against the Arians.

 Chapter II.—Extracts from the Thalia of Arius. Arius maintains that God became a Father, and the Son was not always the Son out of nothing once He w

 Chapter III.—The Importance of the Subject. The Arians affect Scripture language, but their doctrine new, as well as unscriptural. Statement of the Ca

 Chapter IV.—That the Son is Eternal and Increate. These attributes, being the points in dispute, are first proved by direct texts of Scripture. Concer

 Chapter V.—Subject Continued. Objection, that the Son’s eternity makes Him coordinate with the Father, introduces the subject of His Divine Sonship, a

 Chapter VI.—Subject Continued. Third proof of the Son’s eternity, viz. from other titles indicative of His coessentiality as the Creator One of the

 Chapter VII.—Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not.

 Chapter VIII.—Objections Continued. Whether we may decide the question by the parallel of human sons, which are born later than their parents. No, for

 Chapter IX.—Objections Continued. Whether is the Unoriginate one or two? Inconsistent in Arians to use an unscriptural word necessary to define its m

 Chapter X.—Objections Continued. How the Word has free will, yet without being alterable. He is unalterable because the Image of the Father, proved fr

 Chapter XI.—Texts Explained And First,Phil. II. 9, 10 Various texts which are alleged against the Catholic doctrine: e.g. Phil. ii. 9, 10 . Whether t

 Chapter XII.—Texts Explained Secondly, Psalm xlv. 7, 8. Whether the words ‘therefore,’ ‘anointed,’ &c., imply that the Word has been rewarded. Argued

 Chapter XIII.—Texts Explained Thirdly, Hebrews i. 4. Additional texts brought as objections e.g. Heb. i. 4 vii. 22 . Whether the word ‘better’ impl

 Discourse II.

 Chapter XV.—Texts explained Fifthly,Acts ii. 36. The Regula Fidei must be observed made applies to our Lord’s manhood and to His manifestation and

 Chapter XVI.—Introductory to Proverbs viii. 22, that the Son is not a Creature. Arian formula, a creature but not as one of the creatures but each cr

 Chapter XVII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22continued. Absurdity of supposing a Son or Word created in order to the creation of other creatures as

 Chapter XVIII.—Introduction to Proverbs viii. 22continued. Contrast between the Father’s operations immediately and naturally in the Son, instrumental

 Chapter XIX.—Texts explained Sixthly,Proverbs viii. 22. Proverbs are of a figurative nature, and must be interpreted as such. We must interpret them,

 Chapter XX.—Texts Explained Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22 Continued. Our Lord is said to be created ‘for the works,’ i.e. with a particular purpose, whi

 Chapter XXI.—Texts Explained Sixthly, Proverbs viii. 22, Continued. Our Lord not said in Scripture to be ‘created,’ or the works to be ‘begotten.’ ‘I

 Chapter XXII.—Texts Explained Sixthly, the Context of Proverbs viii. 22 Vz. 22–30 It is right to interpret this passage by the Regula Fidei. ‘Founded

 Discourse III.

 Chapter XXIV.—Texts Explained Eighthly,John xvii. 3. and the Like. Our Lord’s divinity cannot interfere with His Father’s prerogatives, as the One Go

 Chapter XXV.—Texts Explained Ninthly, John x. 30 xvii. 11, &c. Arian explanation, that the Son is one with the Father in will and judgment but so a

 Chapter XXVI.—Introductory to Texts from the Gospels on the Incarnation. Enumeration of texts still to be explained. Arians compared to the Jews. We m

 Chapter XXVII.—Texts Explained Tenthly, Matthew xi. 27 John iii. 35, &c. These texts intended to preclude the Sabellian notion of the Son they fall

 Chapter XXVIII.—Texts Explained Eleventhly, Mark xiii. 32 and Luke ii. 52 Arian explanation of the former text is against the Regula Fidei and again

 Chapter XXIX.—Texts Explained Twelfthly, Matthew xxvi. 39 John xii. 27, &c. Arian inferences are against the Regula Fidei, as before. He wept and th

 Chapter XXX.—Objections continued, as in Chapters vii.—x. Whether the Son is begotten of the Father’s will? This virtually the same as whether once He

 Discourse IV.

 6. But in answer to the weak and human notion of the Arians, their supposing that the Lord is in want, when He says, ‘Is given unto Me,’ and ‘I receiv

 8. Eusebius and his fellows, that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish Him to have a beginning of

 9. ‘I and the Father are One .’ You say that the two things are one, or that the one has two names, or again that the one is divided into two. Now if

 11. They fall into the same folly with the Arians for Arians also say that He was created for us, that He might create us, as if God waited till our

 13. This perhaps he borrowed from the Stoics, who maintain that their God contracts and again expands with the creation, and then rests without end. F

 15. Such absurdities will be the consequence of saying that the Monad is dilated into a Triad. But since those who say so venture to separate Word and

 25. Arius then raves in saying that the Son is from nothing, and that once He was not, while Sabellius also raves in saying that the Father is Son, an

 26. But that the Son has no beginning of being, but before He was made man was ever with the Father, John makes clear in his first Epistle, writing th

Chapter VII.—Objections to the Foregoing Proof. Whether, in the generation of the Son, God made One that was already, or One that was not.

22 (continued). Ranking Him among these, according to the teaching of Eusebius, and accounting Him such as the things which come into being through Him, Arius and his fellows revolted from the truth, and used, when they commenced this heresy, to go about with dishonest phrases which they had got together; nay, up to this time some of them148    This miserable procedure, of making sacred and mysterious subjects a matter of popular talk and debate, which is a sure mark of heresy, had received a great stimulus about this time by the rise of the Anomœans. Eusebius’s testimony to the profaneness which attended Arianism upon its rise will be given de Syn. 2, note 1. The Thalia is another instance of it. S. Alexander speaks of the interference, even judicial, in its behalf against himself, of disobedient women, δι᾽ ἐντυχίας γυναικαρίων ἀτακτων ἃ ἠπάτησαν, and of the busy and indecent gadding about of the younger, ἐκ τοῦ περιτροχάζειν πᾶσαν ἀγυιὰν ἀσέμνως. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 3. p. 730, also p. 747; also of the men’s buffoon conversation, p. 731. Socrates says that ‘in the Imperial Court, the officers of the bedchamber held disputes with the women, and in the city in every house there was a war of dialectics.’ Hist. ii. 2. This mania raged especially in Constantinople, and S. Gregory Naz. speaks of ‘Jezebels in as thick a crop as hemlock in a field.’ Orat. 35. 3, cf. de Syn. 13, n. 4. He speaks of the heretics as ‘aiming at one thing only, how to make good or refute points of argument,’ making ‘every market-place resound with their words, and spoiling every entertainment with their trifling and offensive talk.’ Orat. 27. 2. The most remarkable testimony of the kind though not concerning Constantinople, is given by S. Gregory Nyssen, and often quoted, ‘Men of yesterday and the day before, mere mechanics, off-hand dogmatists in theology, servants too and slaves that have been flogged, runaways from servile work, are solemn with us and philosophical about things incomprehensible.…With such the whole city is full; its smaller gates, forums, squares, thoroughfares; the clothes-venders, the money-lenders, the victuallers. Ask about pence, and he will discuss the Generate and Ingenerate; inquire the price of bread, he answers, Greater is the Father, and the Son is subject; say that a bath would suit you, and he defines that the Son is out of nothing.’ t. 2. p. 898.    Deut. xxxii. 39; vi. 4, &c., when they fall in with boys in the market-place, question them, not out of divine Scripture, but thus, as if bursting with ‘the abundance of their heart149    Matt. xii. 34.    θεομάχοι. vid. Acts v. 39.;’—‘He who is, did He make him who was not, from that which was [not], or him who was? therefore did He make the Son, whereas He was, or whereas He was not150    This objection is found in Alex. Ep. Encycl. 2. ὁ ὢν θεὸς τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος. Again, ὄντα γεγέννηκε ἢ οὐκ ὄντα. Greg. Orat. 29. 9. who answers it. Pseudo-Basil. contr. Eunom. iv. p. 281. 2. Basil calls the question πολυθρύλλητον, contr. Eunom. ii. 14. It will be seen to be but the Arian formula of ‘He was not before His generation,’ in another shape; being but this, that the very fact of His being begotten or a Son, implies a beginning, that is, a time when He was not: it being by the very force of the words absurd to say that ‘God begat Him that was,’ or to deny that ‘God begat Him that was not.’ For the symbol, οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννήθῃ, vid. Excursus B. at the end of this Discourse.    2 Sam. xv. 13; 1 Kings i. 11.?’ And again, ‘Is the Unoriginate one or two?’ and ‘Has He free will, and yet does not alter at His own choice, as being of an alterable nature? for He is not as a stone to remain by Himself unmoveable.’ Next they turn to silly women, and address them in turn in this womanish language; ‘Hadst thou a son before bearing? now, as thou hadst not, so neither was the Son of God before His generation.’ In such language do the disgraceful men sport and revel, and liken God to men, pretending to be Christians, but changing God’s glory ‘into an image made like to corruptible man151    Rom. i. 23, and §2.    Luke xviii. 19, and vid. Basil. Ep. 236, 1..’

23. Words so senseless and dull deserved no answer at all; however, lest their heresy appear to have any foundation, it may be right, though we go out of the way for it, to refute them even here, especially on account of the silly women who are so readily deceived by them. When they thus speak, they should have inquired of an architect, whether he can build without materials; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God could not make the universe without materials152    De Decr. § 11, esp. note 6.    Mark xii. 29.. Or they should have asked every man, whether he can be without place; and if he cannot, whether it follows that God is in place, that so they may be brought to shame even by their audience. Or why is it that, on hearing that God has a Son, they deny Him by the parallel of themselves; whereas, if they hear that He creates and makes, no longer do they object their human ideas? they ought in creation also to entertain the same, and to supply God with materials, and so deny Him to be Creator, till they end in grovelling with Manichees. But if the bare idea of God transcends such thoughts, and, on very first hearing, a man believes and knows that He is in being, not as we are, and yet in being as God, and creates not as man creates, but yet creates as God, it is plain that He begets also not as men beget, but begets as God. For God does not make man His pattern; but rather we men, for that God is properly, and alone truly153    De Decr. 31, note 5    John vi. 38; xiv. 28., Father of His Son, are also called fathers of our own children; for of Him ‘is every fatherhood in heaven and earth named154    Eph. iii. 15.    John v. 23, cf. xiii. 20..’ And their positions, while unscrutinized, have a shew of sense; but if any one scrutinize them by reason, they will be found to incur much derision and mockery.

24. For first of all, as to their first question, which is such as this, how dull and vague it is! they do not explain who it is they ask about, so as to allow of an answer, but they say abstractedly, ‘He who is,’ ‘him who is not.’ Who then ‘is,’ and what ‘are not,’ O Arians? or who ‘is,’ and who ‘is not?’ what are said ‘to be,’ what ‘not to be?’ for He that is, can make things which are not, and which are, and which were before. For instance, carpenter, and goldsmith, and potter, each, according to his own art, works upon materials previously existing, making what vessels he pleases; and the God of all Himself, having taken the dust of the earth existing and already brought to be, fashions man; that very earth, however, whereas it was not once, He has at one time made by His own Word. If then this is the meaning of their question, the creature on the one hand plainly was not before its origination, and men, on the other, work the existing material; and thus their reasoning is inconsequent, since both ‘what is’ becomes, and ‘what is not’ becomes, as these instances shew. But if they speak concerning God and His Word, let them complete their question and then ask, Was the God, ‘who is,’ ever without Reason? and, whereas He is Light, was He ray-less? or was He always Father of the Word? Or again in this manner. Has the Father ‘who is’ made the Word ‘who is not,’ or has He ever with Him His Word, as the proper offspring of His substance? This will shew them that they do but presume and venture on sophisms about God and Him who is from Him. Who indeed can bear to hear them say that God was ever without Reason? this is what they fall into a second time, though endeavouring in vain to escape it and to hide it with their sophisms. Nay, one would fain not hear them disputing at all, that God was not always Father, but became so afterwards (which is necessary for their fantasy, that His Word once was not), considering the number of the proofs already adduced against them; while John besides says, ‘The Word was155    John i. 1.    §58, note.,’ and Paul again writes, ‘Who being the brightness of His glory156    Heb. i. 3.    οἱ νῦν, cf. Or. ii. 1, note 6, and Hist. Ar. 61, fin.,’ and, ‘Who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen157    Rom. ix. 5.    διαβολικοί. vid. supr. p. 187, and de Decr. 5, note 2. vid. also Orat. ii. 38, a. 73, a. 74 init. Ep. Æg. 4 and 6. In the passage before us there seems an allusion to false accusation or lying, which is the proper meaning of the word; διαβάλλων occurs shortly before. And so in Apol. ad Const. when he calls Magnentius διάβολος, it is as being a traitor, 7. and soon after he says that his accuser was τὸν διαβόλου πρόπον ἀναλαβών, where the word has no article, and διαβέβλημαι and διεβλήθην have preceded. vid. also Hist. Ar. 52 fin. And so in Sent. D. his speaking of the Arians’ ‘father the devil,’ 3, c. is explained 4, b. by τοὺς πατέρας διαβαλλόντων and τῆς εἰς τὸν ἐπίσκοπον διαβολῆς..’

25. They had best have been silent; but since it is otherwise, it remains to meet their shameless question with a bold retort158    Vid. Basil, contr. Eunom. ii. 17.    παρά, vid. §24 end, and John xv. 26. Perhaps on seeing the counter absurdities which beset themselves, they may cease to fight against the truth. After many prayers159    This cautious and reverent way of speaking is a characteristic of S. Athanasius, ad Serap. i. 1. vid. ii. init. ad Epict. 13 fin. ad Max. init. contr. Apoll. i. init. ‘I must ask another question, bolder, yet with a religious intention; be propitious, O Lord, &c.’ Orat. iii. 63, cf. de Decr. 12, note 8, 15, note 6, de Syn. 51, note 4.    οὓς ἤθελον, infr. §10, n. 1. then that God would be gracious to us, thus we might ask them in turn; God who is, has He so become, whereas He was not? or is He also before His coming into being? whereas He is, did He make Himself, or is He of nothing, and being nothing before, did He suddenly appear Himself? Unseemly is such an enquiry, both unseemly and very blasphemous, yet parallel with theirs; for the answer they make abounds in irreligion. But if it be blasphemous and utterly irreligious thus to inquire about God, it will be blasphemous too to make the like inquiries about His Word. However, by way of exposing a question so senseless and so dull, it is necessary to answer thus:—whereas God is, He was eternally; since then the Father is ever, His Radiance ever is, which is His Word. And again, God who is, hath from Himself His Word who also is; and neither hath the Word been added, whereas He was not before, nor was the Father once without Reason. For this assault upon the Son makes the blasphemy recoil upon the Father; as if He devised for Himself a Wisdom, and Word, and Son from without160    De Decr. 25, note 2.    Who worship one whom they themselves call a creature, vid. supr. Or. i. 8, n. 8, ii. 14, n. 7, 21, n. 2, and below, §16 notes.; for whichever of these titles you use, you denote the offspring from the Father, as has been said. So that this their objection does not hold; and naturally; for denying the Logos they in consequence ask questions which are illogical. As then if a person saw the sun, and then inquired concerning its radiance, and said, ‘Did that which is make that which was, or that which was not,’ he would be held not to reason sensibly, but to be utterly mazed, because he fancied what is from the Light to be external to it, and was raising questions, when and where and whether it were made; in like manner, thus to speculate concerning the Son and the Father and thus to inquire, is far greater madness, for it is to conceive of the Word of the Father as external to Him, and to idly call the natural offspring a work, with the avowal, ‘He was not before His generation.’ Nay, let them over and above take this answer to their question;—The Father who was, made the Son who was, for ‘the Word was made flesh161    John i. 14.    John xiv. 6.;’ and, whereas He was Son of God, He made Him in consummation of the ages also Son of Man, unless forsooth, after the Samosatene, they affirm that He did not even exist at all, till He became man.

26. This is sufficient from us in answer to their first question. And now on your part, O Arians, remembering your own words, tell us whether He who was needed one who was not for the framing of the universe, or one who was? You said that He made for Himself His Son out of nothing, as an instrument whereby to make the universe. Which then is superior, that which needs or that which supplies the need? or does not each supply the deficiency of the other? You rather prove the weakness of the Maker, if He had not power of Himself to make the universe, but provided for Himself an instrument from without162    ὄργανον, de Decr. 7, n. 6, de Syn. 27, note 11. This was alleged by Arius, Socr. i. 6. and by Eusebius, Eccles. Theol. i. 8. supr. Ep. Eus., and by the Anomœans, supr. de Decr. 7, note 1.    Ib. xvii. 3., as carpenter might do or shipwright, unable to work anything without adze and saw! Can anything be more irreligious? yet why should one dwell on its heinousness, when enough has gone before to shew that their doctrine is a mere fantasy?

Ἐν τού τοις γοῦν αὐτὸν συντάττοντες οἱ περὶ Ἄρειον ἐκ δι δασκαλίας Εὐσεβίου, καὶ τοιοῦτον εἶναι νομίζοντες οἷα τὰ δι' αὐτοῦ γενόμενά ἐστιν, ἀπεπήδησαν μὲν ἀπὸ τῆς ἀληθείας, συμφορήσαντες δὲ ἑαυτοῖς ῥημάτια πανουργίας, περιήρχοντο κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν, ὅτε τὴν αἵρεσιν ταύτην ἔπλασσον, καὶ μέχρι δὲ νῦν τινες συναντῶντες ἐξ αὐτῶν παιδαρίοις κατὰ τὴν ἀγορὰν, πυνθάνονται αὐτῶν, οὔτι γε ἀπὸ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν, ἀλλ' ὥσπερ τὰ περισσεύματα τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐρευγόμενοι λέγουσιν· Ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐκ τοῦ ὄντος πεποίηκεν, ἢ τὸν ὄντα; ὄντα οὖν αὐτὸν πεποίηκεν, ἢ μὴ ὄντα; Καὶ πάλιν, Ἓν τὸ ἀγένητον, ἢ δύο; καὶ αὐτεξούσιός ἐστι καὶ ἰδίᾳ προαιρέσει οὐ τρέπεται, τρεπτῆς ὢν φύσεως; Οὐ γὰρ ὡς λίθος ἐστὶν ἀφ' ἑαυτοῦ μένων ἀκίνητος. Εἶτα καὶ εἰσερχόμενοι πρὸς γυναικάρια, πάλιν αὐταῖς ἐκτεθη λυμένα ῥημάτια φθέγγονται, Εἰ εἶχες υἱὸν πρὶν τέκῃς; ὥσπερ δὲ οὐκ εἶχες, οὕτω καὶ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν γεννηθῇ. Τοιούτοις ῥήμασιν ἐξορχούμε νοι παίζουσιν οἱ ἄτιμοι, καὶ τὸν Θεὸν ἀνθρώποις ἀπεικάζουσι· φάσκοντές τε εἶναι Χριστιανοὶ, ἀλλάσσουσι τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ δόξαν ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου Ἔδει μὲν οὖν μηδὲν ἀποκρίνασθαι πρὸς τὰ τοιαῦτα, οὕτως ἀνόητα ὄντα καὶ μωρά· ἵνα δὲ μὴ δοκῇ τι βέβαιον ἔχειν ἡ αἵρεσις αὐτῶν, προσήκει κἂν ὡς ἐκ παρέργου διελέγξαι καὶ ἐν τούτοις αὐτοὺς μάλιστα διὰ τὰ εὐχερῶς ἀπατώμενα παρ' αὐτῶν γυναικάρια. Ἔδει δὲ ταῦτα λέγοντας αὐτοὺς, καὶ ἀρχιτέκτονος πυνθάνεσθαι, Εἰ δύνασαι χωρὶς ὕλης ὑποκειμένης οἰκοδομεῖν; ὥσπερ δὲ οὐ δύνασαι, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἠδύνατο χωρὶς ὕλης ὑποκειμέ νης ποιῆσαι τὰ ὅλα. Ἔδει καὶ ἕκαστον αὐτοὺς τῶν ἀνθρώπων ἐρωτᾷν, Εἰ δύνασαι εἶναι χωρὶς τό που; ὥσπερ δὲ οὐ δύνασαι, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Θεὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἐστίν· ἵν' οὕτως κἂν παρὰ τῶν ἀκουόντων ἐντρέ πεσθαι δυνηθῶσιν. Ἢ διὰ τί, ἐὰν μὲν ἀκούωσιν, ὅτι Υἱὸν ἔχει ὁ Θεὸς, εἰς ἑαυτοὺς ἀποβλέποντες ἀρ νοῦνται τοῦτον· ἐὰν δὲ ἀκούωσιν, ὅτι κτίζει καὶ ποιεῖ, οὐκέτι τὰ ἀνθρώπινα ἀντιτιθέασιν; ἔδει δὲ καὶ ἐν τῷ κτίζειν ἀνθρώπινα νοεῖν αὐτοὺς καὶ ὕλην ὑποβάλλειν τῷ Θεῷ, ἵνα καὶ τὸ εἶναι κτίστην τὸν Θεὸν ἀρνήσωνται, καὶ λοιπὸν μετὰ Μανιχαίων κυ λίωνται. Εἰ δὲ ταῦθ' ὑπερβαίνει ἡ περὶ Θεοῦ ἔννοια, καὶ μόνον τις ἀκούσας πιστεύει καὶ οἶδεν, ὅτι ἐστὶν οὐχ ὡς ἡμεῖς ἐσμεν, ἔστι μέντοι ὡς Θεὸς, καὶ κτίζει οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωποι κτίζουσι, κτίζει μέντοι ὡς Θεός· δῆλον, ὅτι καὶ γεννᾷ οὐχ ὡς ἄνθρωποι γεννῶσι, γεννᾷ μέντοι ὡς Θεός· οὐ γὰρ ὁ Θεὸς ἄνθρωπον μιμεῖται· ἀλλὰ μᾶλλον οἱ ἄνθρωποι διὰ τὸν Θεὸν κυρίως καὶ μόνον ἀληθῶς ὄντα Πατέρα τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ Υἱοῦ, καὶ αὐτοὶ πατέρες ὠνομάσθησαν τῶν ἰδίων τέκνων. Ἐξ αὐτοῦ γὰρ πᾶσα πατριὰ ἐν οὐρανοῖς καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς ὀνομάζεται. Καὶ ἃ λέγουσι δὲ, ἐὰν ἀνεξέταστα μείνῃ, ὡς εἰρηκότες τι φρόνιμον νομίζονται· ἐὰν δέ τις αὐτὰ λογικῶς ἐξετάσῃ, πολὺν εὑρεθήσονται γέλωτα καὶ χλευασμὸν ὀφλισκάνοντες. Πρῶτον μὲν γὰρ ἡ πρώτη καὶ τοιαύτη αὐτῶν ἐρώτησίς ἐστι μωρὰ καὶ ἄδηλος. Οὐ γὰρ σημαί νουσι περὶ τίνος πυνθάνονται, ἵνα καὶ ὁ ἐρωτώμενος ἀποκρίνηται· ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς λέγουσιν, Ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα. Τίς οὖν ὁ ὢν, καὶ τίνα τὰ μὴ ὄντα, ὦ Ἀρειανοί; Ἢ τίς ὁ ὢν, καὶ τίς ὁ μὴ ὢν, καὶ τίνα λέγεται ὄντα, ἢ μὴ ὄντα; ∆υνατὸν γὰρ καὶ τὸν ὄντα ποιεῖν καὶ τὰ μὴ ὄντα καὶ τὰ ὄντα καὶ τὰ προόντα. Τέκτων γοῦν καὶ χρυσοχόος καὶ κεραμεὺς τὴν οὖσαν καὶ πρὸ αὐτῶν τυγχάνουσαν ὕλην ἕκαστος κατὰ τὴν ἰδίαν τέχνην ἐργάζεται, ποιῶν ἃ βούλεται σκεύη· αὐτὸς δὲ ὁ τῶν ὅλων Θεὸς, τὸν ὄντα καὶ γενόμενον ἤδη παρ' αὐτοῦ χοῦν ἐκ γῆς λαβὼν πλάττει τὸν ἄν θρωπον· καὶ αὐτὴν μέντοι τὴν γῆν, οὐκ οὖσαν πρότερον, ὕστερον εἰς τὸ εἶναι πεποίηκε διὰ τοῦ ἰδίου Λόγου. Εἰ μὲν οὖν οὕτω πυνθάνονται, δῆλόν ἐστιν, ὡς ἡ μὲν κτίσις οὐκ ἦν, πρὶν γένηται, οἱ δὲ ἄν θρωποι τὴν οὖσαν ὕλην ἐπεργάζονται, καὶ ἀσύστατος αὐτῶν ὁ λόγος φανήσεται, γινομένων καὶ ὄντων, γι νομένων καὶ μὴ ὄντων, ὥσπερ εἴπαμεν. Εἰ δὲ περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ λαλοῦσι, προστιθέ τωσαν τὰ λειπόμενα τῇ ἐρωτήσει, καὶ οὕτως ἐρωτάτωσαν· Ὁ ὢν Θεὸς ἦν ποτε ἄλογος; καὶ, Φῶς ὢν, ἀφεγγὴς ἦν; ἢ, Ἀεὶ ἦν τοῦ Λόγου Πατήρ; ἢ καὶ πάλιν οὕτως· Ὁ ὢν Πατὴρ τὸν Λόγον μὴ ὄντα πε ποίηκεν, ἢ τὸν Λόγον ἴδιον ὄντα τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ γέννημα ἔχει ἀεὶ σὺν αὐτῷ, ἵνα γνωσθῶσιν, ὅτι ὅλως περὶ Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτοῦ περιεργάζονται καὶ σοφίζεσθαι τολμῶσι. Τίς γὰρ ἀνέξεται λεγόντων αὐ τῶν ἄλογόν ποτε τὸν Θεόν; Πάλιν γὰρ εἰς ταὐτὸν τοῖς προτέροις περιπεπτώκασι, καίτοι φεύγειν αὐτὸ καὶ σκέπειν σπουδάσαντες τοῖς ἑαυτῶν σοφίσμασιν· ἀλλ' οὐ δεδύνηνται. Οὐδεὶς γὰρ ὅλως κἂν ἀκοῦσαι θελήσειεν ἀμφιβαλλόντων αὐτῶν, ὅτι ὁ Θεὸς οὐκ ἦν ἀεὶ Πατὴρ, ἀλλ' ὕστερον γέγονεν, ἵνα καὶ φαντα σθῶσιν, ὅτι καὶ ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ ποτε οὐκ ἦν πολλῶν ὄντων τῶν προειρημένων κατ' αὐτῶν ἐλέγχων, καὶ τοῦ μὲν Ἰωάννου λέγοντος, Ἦν ὁ Λόγος, τοῦ δὲ Παύλου γράφοντος πάλιν, Ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης, καὶ, Ὁ ὢν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸς εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. Ἀμήν. Καὶ βέλτιον ἦν μὲν αὐτοὺς ἠρεμεῖν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ οὐ παύονται, λοιπὸν πρὸς τὴν τοιαύτην ἀναίσχυντον ἐρώτησιν αὐτῶν τοῦτο ἄν τις ἐπίσης αὐτοῖς τολμήσας ἀντερωτήσειεν· ἴσως ἐκ τῶν ὁμοίων ἀτοπημάτων βλέποντες ἑαυτοὺς συγκλειομένους, ἀναχωρήσουσι τῆς πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν μάχης. Πολλὰ τοίνυν πρότερον ἵλεων τὸν Θεὸν ἐπικαλεσάμενος, οὕτως αὐτοῖς τις ἀπαντήσειεν· Ὁ ὢν Θεὸς, οὐκ ὢν γέγονεν, ἢ καὶ πρὶν γένηται, ἔστιν; Ὢν οὖν ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησεν, ἢ ἐξ οὐδενός ἐστι, καὶ μηδὲν ὢν πρότερον ἐξαίφνης αὐτὸς ἐφάνη; Ἄτοπος ἡ τοιαύτη ἐρώτησις, ναὶ ἄτοπος καὶ πλέα δυσφημίας· ἀλλ' ὁμοία γε τῆς ἐκείνων· ὁπότερον γὰρ ἂν εἴπωσι, τοῦτο μεστόν ἐστι πάσης ἀσεβείας. Εἰ δὲ τὸ οὕτως ἐρωτᾷν περὶ Θεοῦ βλάσφη μον καὶ πλέον ἀσεβείας ἐστὶ, βλάσφημον ἂν εἴη καὶ περὶ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ τοιαῦτα ἐρωτᾷν. Ἀποκρίνασθαι δὲ ὅμως πρὸς ἀναίρεσιν τῆς τοιαύτης αὐτῶν ἀλόγου καὶ μωρᾶς ἐρωτήσεως ἀναγκαῖον οὕτως· Ὅτι ὤν ἐστιν ἀϊδίως ὁ Θεός· ὄντος οὖν ἀεὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἔστι καὶ ἀϊδίως καὶ τὸ τούτου ἀπαύγασμα, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ· καὶ πάλιν ὁ ὢν Θεὸς, ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ὄντα τὸν Λόγον ἔχει· καὶ οὔτε ὁ Λόγος ἐπι γέγονεν οὐκ ὢν πρότερον, οὔτε ὁ Πατὴρ ἄλογος ἦν ποτε. Ἡ γὰρ κατὰ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τόλμα εἰς τὸν Πατέρα τὴν βλασφημίαν ἀνάγει, εἴγε ἔξωθεν ἐπενόησεν ἑαυτῷ σοφίαν, καὶ Λόγον, καὶ Υἱόν. Ὃ γὰρ ἐὰν τούτων εἴπῃς, τοῦτο τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς γέννημα σημαίνει, ὥσπερ εἴρηται. Ὥστε ἀσύστατος αὐτῶν ἡ τοιαύτη ἐρώτησις, καὶ εἰκότως· ἀρνούμενοι γὰρ τὸν Λόγον, ἄλογον ἔχουσι καὶ τὴν ἐρώτησιν. Ὡς γὰρ εἴ τις τὸν ἥλιον ὁρῶν πυνθάνοιτο περὶ τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος, καὶ λέγοι, Ὁ ὢν τὸ μὴ ὂν πεποίηκεν, ἢ ὂν αὐτὸ πεποίηκεν; οὐ σώφρονα ἔχειν ὁ τοιοῦτος λογισμὸν νομισθήσεται, ἀλλ' ἐμβρόντητος ἂν εἴη, ὅτι ὅλως ὅ ἐστιν ἐκ τοῦ φωτὸς, τοῦτο ἔξωθεν ἐπινοεῖ καὶ περὶ τοῦτο ἐρωτᾷ, πότε, καὶ ποῦ καὶ ὅτε, καὶ εἰ πεποίηται· οὕτως καὶ ὁ περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς τοιαῦτα λογιζόμενος, καὶ οὕτω πυνθανόμενος, πολλῷ μᾶλλον τὴν μανίαν μείζονα ἂν ἔχοι, ὅτι τὸν ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς Λόγον ἔξωθεν αὐτῷ ἐπεισάγει, καὶ τὸ φύσει γέννημα ὡς ποίημα σκιαλογῶν λέγει, Οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ. Ἀκουέ τωσαν δὲ ὅμως καὶ πρὸς τὴν ἐρώτησιν αὐτῶν, ὅτι Ὁ ὢν Πατὴρ τὸν ὄντα Υἱὸν ἐποίησεν. Ὁ γὰρ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο, καὶ ὄντα αὐτὸν Υἱὸν Θεοῦ ἐποίη σεν ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων καὶ Υἱὸν ἀνθρώπου, εἰ μὴ ἄρα κατὰ τὸν Σαμοσατέα μηδὲ εἶναι αὐτὸν πρὶν ἄνθρωπον γενέσθαι εἴποιεν. Καὶ πρὸς μὲν τὴν πρώτην αὐτῶν ἐρώτησιν ἱκανὰ ταῦτα παρ' ἡ μῶν. Ὑμεῖς δὲ, ὦ Ἀρειανοὶ, τῶν ἰδίων ἑαυτῶν ῥημάτων μνημονεύοντες, εἴπατε· Ὁ ὢν τοῦ μὴ ὄντος ἔχρῃζεν εἰς τὴν τῶν πάντων δημιουργίαν, ἢ ὄντος αὐτοῦ ἔχρῃζεν; Εἰρήκατε γὰρ, Ὄργανον ἑαυτῷ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐκ τοῦ μὴ ὄντος κατεσκεύασεν, ἵνα δι' αὐτοῦ ποιήσῃ τὰ πάντα. Τί οὖν ἐστι βέλτιον, τὸ χρῇζον, ἢ τὸ τὴν χρείαν ἀναπληροῦν; ἢ ἀμφότερα τὰ ἐνδέοντα ἀλλήλων ἀναπληροῦσι; Τοιαῦτα γὰρ λέγοντες, τοῦ κατασκευάσαντος μᾶλλον ἀσθένειαν δεικνύετε, εἰ μὴ καὶ μόνος ἴσχυσε δημιουργῆσαι τὰ πάντα, ἀλλ' ἔξωθεν ἑαυτῷ ὄργανον ἐπινοεῖ, ὥσπερ τέκτων ἢ ναυπηγός τις, μὴ δυνάμενος ὁτιοῦν ἐργά σασθαι χωρὶς σκεπάρνου καὶ πρίονος. Τί οὖν τούτου ἀσεβέστερον; Ἢ τί δεῖ διατρίβειν ὅλως ἐν τού τοις ὡς δεινοῖς, αὐταρκῶν ὄντων τῶν προειρημένων δεῖξαι, φαντασίαν μόνον εἶναι τὰ παρ' αὐτῶν;