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 the force of the analogy lies in the idea of connaturality. Time is not involved in the idea of Son, but is adventitious to it, and does not attach to God, because He is without parts and passions. The titles Word and Wisdom guard our thoughts of Him and His Son from this misconception. God not a Father, as a Creator, in posse from eternity, because creation does not relate to the essence of God, as generation does.

26. (continued). Nor is answer needful to their other very simple and foolish inquiry, which they put to silly women; or none besides that which has been already given, namely, that it is not suitable to measure divine generation by the nature of men. However, that as before they may pass judgment on themselves, it is well to meet them on the same ground, thus:—Plainly, if they inquire of parents concerning their son, let them consider whence is the child which is begotten. For, granting the parent had not a son before his begetting, still, after having him, he had him, not as external or as foreign, but as from himself, and proper to his essence and his exact image, so that the former is beheld in the latter, and the latter is contemplated in the former. If then they assume from human examples that generation implies time, why not from the same infer that it implies the Natural and the Proper163    Supr. de Decr. 6. The question was, What was that sense of Son which would apply to the Divine Nature? The Catholics said that its essential meaning could apply, viz. consubstantiality, whereas the point of posteriority to the Father depended on a condition, time, which could not exist in the instance of God. ib. 10. The Arians on the other hand said, that to suppose a true Son, was to think of God irreverently, as implying division, change, &c. The Catholics replied that the notion of materiality was quite as foreign from the Divine Essence as time, and as the Divine Sonship was eternal, so was it also clear both of imperfection or extension.    ὡς αὐτοὶ θέλουσι. vid. §8, n. 12. ‘not as you say, but as we will.’ This is a common phrase with Athan. vid. supr. Or. i. 13, n. 6. and especially Hist. Ar. 52, n. 4. (vid. also Sent. Dion. 4, 14). It is here contrasted to the Church’s doctrine, and connected with the word ἴδιος· for which de Syn. 3, n. 6; Or. i. 37, n. 1. Vid. also Letter 54. fin. Also contr. Apoll. ii. 5 init. in contrast with the εὐαγγελικὸς ὅρος., instead of extracting serpent-like from the earth only what turns to poison? Those who ask of parents, and say, ‘Had you a son before you begot him?’ should add, ‘And if you had a son, did you purchase him from without as a house or any other possession?’ And then you would be answered, ‘He is not from without, but from myself. For things which are from without are possessions, and pass from one to another; but my son is from me, proper and similar to my essence, not become mine from another, but begotten of me; wherefore I too am wholly in him, while I remain myself what I am164    It is from expressions such as this that the Greek Fathers have been accused of tritheism. The truth is, every illustration, as being incomplete on one or other side of it, taken by itself, tends to heresy. The title Son by itself suggests a second God, as the title Word a mere attribute, and the title Instrument a creature. All heresies are partial views of the truth, and are wrong, not so much in what they say, as in what they deny. The truth, on the other hand, is a positive and comprehensive doctrine, and in consequence necessarily mysterious and open to misconception. vid. de Syn. 41, note 1. When Athan, implies that the Eternal Father is in the Son, though remaining what He is, as a man in his child, he is intent only upon the point of the Son’s connaturality and equality, which the Arians denied. Cf. Orat. iii. §5; Ps.-Ath. Dial. i. (Migne xxviii. 1144 C.). S. Cyril even seems to deny that each individual man may be considered a separate substance except as the Three Persons are such (Dial. i. p. 409); and S. Gregory Nyssen is led to say that, strictly speaking, the abstract man, which is predicated of separate individuals, is still one, and this with a view of illustrating the Divine Unity. ad Ablab. t. 2. p. 449. vid. Petav. de Trin. iv. 9.    σύμφωνος. vid. infr. 23, de Syn. 48, and 53, n. 9. the Arian συμφωνία is touched on de Syn. 23, n. 3. Besides Origen, Novatian, the Creed of Lucian, and (if so) S. Hilary, as mentioned in the former of these notes, ‘one’ is explained as oneness of will by S. Hippolytus, contr. Noet. 7, where he explains John x. 30. by xvii. 22. like the Arians; and, as might be expected, by Eusebius Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 193. and by Asterius ap. Euseb. contr. Marc. pp. 28, 37. The passages of the Fathers in which this text is adduced are collected by Maldonat. in loc..’ For so it is; though the parent be distinct in time, as being man, who himself has come to be in time, yet he too would have had his child ever coexistent with him, but that his nature was a restraint and made it impossible. For Levi too was already in the loins of his great-grandfather, before his own actual generation, or that of his grandfather. When then the man comes to that age at which nature supplies the power, immediately, with nature, unrestrained, he becomes father of the son from himself.

27. Therefore, if on asking parents about children, they get for answer, that children which are by nature are not from without, but from their parents, let them confess in like manner concerning the Word of God, that He is simply from the Father. And if they make a question of the time, let them say what is to restrain God—for it is necessary to prove their irreligion on the very ground on which their scoff is made—let them tell us, what is there to restrain God from being always Father of the Son; for that what is begotten must be from its father is undeniable. Moreover, they will pass judgment on themselves in attributing165    [But see Or. iii. 65, note 2.]    Asterius, §2, init. such things to God, if, as they questioned women on the subject of time, so they inquire of the sun concerning its radiance, and of the fountain concerning its issue. They will find that these, though an offspring, always exist with those things from which they are. And if parents, such as these, have in common with their children nature and duration, why, if they suppose God inferior to things that come to be166    S. Athanasius’s doctrine is, that, God containing in Himself all perfection, whatever is excellent in one created thing above another, is found in its perfection in Him. If then such generation as radiance from light is more perfect than that of children from parents, that belongs, and transcendently, to the All-perfect God.    ὥρα. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 4. also Orat. ii. 6, b. iv. 19, c. d. Euseb. contr. Marc. p. 47, b. p. 91, b. Cyril. Dial. p. 456. Thesaur. p. 255 fin., do they not openly say out their own irreligion? But if they do not dare to say this openly, and the Son is confessed to be, not from without, but a natural offspring from the Father, and that there is nothing which is a restraint to God (for not as man is He, but more than the sun, or rather the God of the sun), it follows that the Word is from Him and is ever co-existent with Him, through whom also the Father caused that all things which were not should be. That then the Son comes not of nothing but is eternal and from the Father, is certain even from the nature of the case; and the question of the heretics to parents exposes their perverseness; for they confess the point of nature, and now have been put to shame on the point of time.

28. As we said above, so now we repeat, that the divine generation must not be compared to the nature of men, nor the Son considered to be part of God, nor the generation to imply any passion whatever; God is not as man; for men beget passibly, having a transitive nature, which waits for periods by reason of its weakness. But with God this cannot be; for He is not composed of parts, but being impassible and simple, He is impassibly and indivisibly Father of the Son. This again is strongly evidenced and proved by divine Scripture. For the Word of God is His Son, and the Son is the Father’s Word and Wisdom; and Word and Wisdom is neither creature nor part of Him whose Word He is, nor an offspring passibly begotten. Uniting then the two titles, Scripture speaks of ‘Son,’ in order to herald the natural and true offspring of His essence; and, on the other hand, that none may think of the Offspring humanly, while signifying His essence, it also calls Him Word, Wisdom, and Radiance; to teach us that the generation was impassible, and eternal, and worthy of God.167    This is a view familiar to the Fathers, viz. that in this consists our Lord’s Sonship, that He is the Word, or as S. Augustine says, Christum ideo Filium quia Verbum. Aug. Ep. 120. 11. Cf. de Decr. §17. ‘If I speak of Wisdom, I speak of His offspring;’ Theoph. ad Autolyc. i. 3. ‘The Word, the genuine Son of Mind;’ Clem. Protrept. p. 58. Petavius discusses this subject accurately with reference to the distinction between Divine Generation and Divine Procession. de Trin. vii. 14.    This argument is found de Syn. 48. vid. also Cyril. de Trin. i. p. 407. What affection then, or what part of the Father is the Word and the Wisdom and the Radiance? So much may be impressed even on these men of folly; for as they asked women concerning God’s Son, so168    Orat. iii. 67.    Is. xiv. 12. let them inquire of men concerning the Word, and they will find that the word which they put forth is neither an affection of them nor a part of their mind. But if such be the word of men, who are passible and partitive, why speculate they about passions and parts in the instance of the immaterial and indivisible God, that under pretence of reverence169    Heretics have frequently assigned reverence as the cause of their opposition to the Church; and if even Arius affected it, the plea may be expected in any other. ‘O stultos et impios metus,’ says S. Hilary, ‘et irreligiosam de Deo sollicitudinem.’ de Trin. iv. 6. It was still more commonly professed in regard to the Catholic doctrine of the Incarnation. Cf. Acta Archelai [Routh. Rell. v. 169]. August. contr. Secund. 9, contr. Faust. xi. 3. As the Manichees denied our Lord a body, so the Apollinarians denied Him a rational soul, still under pretence of reverence because, as they said, the soul was necessarily sinful. Leontius makes this their main argument, ὁ νοῦς ἁμαρτητικός ἐστι. de Sect. iv. p. 507. vid. also Greg. Naz. Ep. 101. ad Cledon. p. 89; Athan. in Apoll. i. 2. 14. Epiph. Ancor. 79. 80. Athan., &c., call the Apollinarian doctrine Manichæan in consequence. vid. in Apoll. ii. 8. 9. &c. Again, the Eranistes in Theodoret, who advocates a similar doctrine, will not call our Lord man. Eranist. ii. p. 83. Eutyches, on the other hand, would call our Lord man, but refused to admit His human nature, and still with the same profession. Leon. Ep. 21. 1 fin. ‘Forbid it,’ he says at Constantinople, ‘that I should say that the Christ was of two natures, or should discuss the nature, φυσιολογεῖν, of my God.’ Concil. t. 2. p. 157 [Act. prima conc. Chalc. t. iv. 1001 ed. Col.] A modern argument for Universal Restitution takes a like form; ‘Do not we shrink from the notion of another’s being sentenced to eternal punishment; and are we more merciful than God?’ vid. Matt. xvi. 22, 23.    Luke vi. 36 (cf. Tisch. in loc.) they may deny the true and natural generation of the Son? Enough was said above to shew that the offspring from God is not an affection; and now it has been shewn in particular that the Word is not begotten according to affection. The same may be said of Wisdom; God is not as man; nor must they here think humanly of Him. For, whereas men are capable of wisdom, God partakes in nothing, but is Himself the Father of His own Wisdom, of which whoso partake are given the name of wise. And this Wisdom too is not a passion, nor a part, but an Offspring proper to the Father. Wherefore He is ever Father, nor is the character of Father adventitious to God, lest He seem alterable; for if it is good that He be Father, but has not ever been Father, then good has not ever been in Him.

29. But, observe, say they, God was always a Maker, nor is the power of framing adventitious to Him; does it follow then, that, because He is the Framer of all, therefore His works also are eternal, and is it wicked to say of them too, that they were not before origination? Senseless are these Arians; for what likeness is there between Son and work, that they should parallel a father’s with a maker’s function? How is it that, with that difference between offspring and work, which has been shewn, they remain so ill-instructed? Let it be repeated then, that a work is external to the nature, but a son is the proper offspring of the essence; it follows that a work need not have been always, for the workman frames it when he will; but an offspring is not subject to will, but is proper to the essence170    Vid. Orat. iii. §59, &c.    Eph. v. 1, 2.. And a man may be and may be called Maker, though the works are not as yet; but father he cannot be called, nor can he be, unless a son exist. And if they curiously inquire why God, though always with the power to make, does not always make (though this also be the presumption of madmen, for ‘who hath known the mind of the Lord, or who hath been His Counsellor?’ or how ‘shall the thing formed say to’ the potter, ‘why didst thou make me thus171    Rom. xi. 34; ib. ix. 20.    1 Cor. xi. 1.?’ however, not to leave even a weak argument unnoticed), they must be told, that although God always had the power to make, yet the things originated had not the power of being eternal172    Athan.’s argument is as follows: that, as it is of the essence of a son to be ‘connatural’ with the father, so is it of the essence of a creature to be of ‘nothing,’ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων; therefore, while it was not impossible ‘from the nature of the case,’ for Almighty God to be always Father, it was impossible for the same reason that He should be always a Creator. vid. infr. §58: where he takes, ‘They shall perish,’ in the Psalm, not as a fact but as the definition of the nature of a creature. Also ii. §1, where he says, ‘It is proper to creatures and works to have said of them, ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων and οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ.’ vid. Cyril. Thesaur. 9. p. 67. Dial. ii. p. 460. on the question of being a Creator in posse, vid. supra, Ep. Eus. 11 note 3.    John x. 30; xiv. 10.. For they are out of nothing, and therefore were not before their origination; but things which were not before their origination, how could these coexist with the ever-existing God? Wherefore God, looking to what was good for them, then made them all when He saw that, when originated, they were able to abide. And as, though He was able, even from the beginning in the time of Adam, or Noah, or Moses, to send His own Word, yet He sent Him not until the consummation of the ages (for this He saw to be good for the whole creation), so also things originated did He make when He would, and as was good for them. But the Son, not being a work, but proper to the Father’s offspring, always is; for, whereas the Father always is, so what is proper to His essence must always be; and this is His Word and His Wisdom. And that creatures should not be in existence, does not disparage the Maker; for He hath the power of framing them, when He wills; but for the offspring not to be ever with the Father, is a disparagement of the perfection of His essence. Wherefore His works were framed, when He would, through His Word; but the Son is ever the proper offspring of the Father’s essence.

Πρὸς δὲ τὴν ἑτέραν αὐτῶν εὐήθη πάνυ καὶ μωρὰν ἐξέτασιν, ἣν πρὸς τὰ γυναικάρια ποιοῦνται, οὐδὲν μὲν πάλιν οὐδὲ περὶ ταύτης ἐχρῆν ἀποκρίνασθαι, ἢ τοῦτο μόνον ὃ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἰρήκαμεν, ὅτι μὴ δέον τὴν ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννησιν συμμετρεῖν τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσει. Ἵνα δὲ ὅμως καὶ ἐν τούτῳ κα ταγνῶσιν ἑαυτῶν, καλὸν ἐκ τῶν αὐτῶν πάλιν οὕτως αὐτοῖς ἀπαντῆσαι. Ὅλως εἰ περὶ Υἱοῦ πυνθά νονται γονέων, ἐνθυμείσθωσαν πόθεν ἐστὶ τὸ γεννώ μενον τέκνον. Εἰ γὰρ καὶ οὐκ εἶχεν ὁ γονεὺς υἱὸν πρὶν γεννήσῃ· ἀλλ' ἐσχηκὼς, οὐκ ἔξωθεν οὐδὲ ἀλλό τριον, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ καὶ ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας καὶ ἀπαράλλακτον ἔσχεν εἰκόνα, ὥστε τοῦτον ἐν ἐκείνῳ βλέπεσθαι, κἀκεῖνον ἐν τούτῳ θεωρεῖσθαι. Εἰ τοίνυν ἐν τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων παραδειγμάτων τὸν χρόνον τῶν γεννώντων λαμβάνουσι, διὰ τί μὴ ἐκ τῶν αὐ τῶν καὶ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐνθυμοῦν ται τῶν τέκνων πρὸς τοὺς γονέας, ἀλλὰ κατὰ τοὺς ὄφεις μόνον τὸ πρὸς τὸν ἰὸν ἐπιτήδειον ἐκ τῆς γῆς ἐκλέγονται; Ἔδει δὲ πυνθανομένους αὐτοὺς γονέων καὶ λέγοντας, Οὐκ εἶχες υἱὸν πρὶν γεννήσῃς; προσθεῖ ναι καὶ εἰπεῖν, Ἐὰν δὲ σχῇς υἱὸν, ἆρά γε ἔξωθεν ὥσπερ οἰκίαν, ἤ τι ἕτερον κτῆμα ἀγοράζεις; ἵνα σοι ἀποκρίνηται· Οὐκ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἐμοῦ ἐστι. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ ἔξωθεν κτήματά ἐστι, καὶ ἀφ' ἑτέρου εἰς ἕτερον μετέρχεται· ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἐξ ἐμοῦ ἐστι, καὶ τῆς ἐμῆς οὐσίας ἴδιος καὶ ὅμοιος, οὐκ ἀφ' ἑτέρου εἰς ἐμὲ γεγο νὼς, ἀλλ' ἐξ ἐμοῦ γεγεννημένος· διὸ καὶ ἐν ἐκείνῳ ὅλος εἰμὶ, μένων αὐτὸς ὅ εἰμι. Οὕτω γὰρ ἔχει· κἂν ὁ γονεὺς τῷ χρόνῳ διαφέρῃ, ὡς ἄνθρωπος ἐν χρόνῳ καὶ αὐτὸς γεγονώς· ἀλλ' ἔσχεν ἂν καὶ αὐ τὸς ἀεὶ συνυπάρχον τὸ τέκνον, εἰ μὴ ἡ φύσις ἐνεπό διζε καὶ ἐκώλυε τὸ δύνασθαι. Καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Λευῒ ἔτι ἦν ἐν τῇ ὀσφύϊ τοῦ προπάππου, πρὶν αὐτὸς γεννηθῇ, καὶ ὁ πάππος γεννήσῃ. Ὅταν οὖν εἰς τοῦθ' ἡλι κίας ἔλθοι ὁ ἄνθρωπος, ἐν ᾗ καὶ τὸ δυνατὸν ἡ φύσις παρέχει, εὐθὺς ἀνεμποδίστῳ τῇ φύσει πα τὴρ ὁ ἄνθρωπος γίνεται τοῦ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ υἱοῦ. Οὐκοῦν εἰ γονέων περὶ τέκνων ἐπύθοντο, καὶ ἔγνωσαν ὅτι τὰ φύσει τέκνα οὐκ ἔξωθεν ἀλλ' ἐκ τῶν γονέων εἰσίν· ὁμολογείτωσαν καὶ περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ, ὅτι ὅλως ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστι. Καὶ περὶ τοῦ χρόνου ζητοῦντες, τὸ ἐμποδίζον τὸν Θεὸν λεγέτω σαν. Χρὴ γὰρ ἐξ ὧν ὡς χλευάζοντες ἐπυνθάνοντο, ἐκ τούτων αὐτοὺς ἀσεβοῦντας διελέγχειν. Εἰπάτωσαν τοίνυν τί τὸ ἐμποδίζον τὸν Θεὸν, ἀεὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ Πατέρα αὐτὸν εἶναι; Τὸ γὰρ ἐκ πατρὸς εἶναι τὸ γεννώμενον ὡμολόγηται. Ἵνα δὲ καὶ ὅλως τι τοιοῦτον λο γισάμενοι περὶ τὸν Θεὸν, καταγνῶσιν ἑαυτῶν· ὥσπερ ἠρώτησαν γυναῖκας περὶ τῶν χρόνων, οὕτω πυνθανέσθωσαν καὶ τοῦ ἡλίου περὶ τοῦ ἀπαυγάσματος αὐτοῦ, καὶ τῆς πηγῆς περὶ τοῦ ἐξ αὐτῆς, ἵνα μάθω σιν, ὅτι, καίπερ ὄντα γεννήματα ταῦτα, ἐστὶ καὶ ἀεὶ σὺν ἐκείνοι, ἐξ ὧν καί εἰσιν. Εἰ δὲ καὶ τὸ φύσει καὶ τὸ ἀεὶ οἱ τοιοῦτοι γονεῖς ἔχουσι πρὸς τὰ τέκνα, διὰ τί τὸν Θεὸν ἐλάττονα τῶν γενητῶν ὑπονοοῦντες, οὐ φανερώτερον ἑαυτῶν τὴν ἀσέβειαν ἐξάγουσιν; Εἰ δὲ τοῦτο μὲν οὐ τολμῶσιν ἐκ φανεροῦ λέγειν, ὁμολογεῖται δὲ ὁ Υἱὸς μὴ ἔξωθεν, ἀλλ' ἐκ τοῦ Πατρὸς εἶναι φύσει γέννημα, οὐδὲν δὲ οὐδὲ τὸ ἐμποδίζον ἐστὶ τὸν Θεόν· (οὐ γὰρ ὡς ἄνθρωπος, ὁ Θεὸς, ἀλλὰ καὶ πλέον ἐστὶ τοῦ ἡλίου, μᾶλλον δὲ Θεός ἐστι τοῦ ἡλίου·) δῆλον, ὅτι καὶ ἐξ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἀεί ἐστι συνυπάρχων ὁ Λόγος τῷ Πατρὶ, δι' οὗ τὰ πάντα οὐκ ὄντα εἰς τὸ εἶναι πεποίηκεν ὁ Πατήρ. Ὅτι μὲν οὖν ὁ Υἱὸς οὐκ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων, ἀλλ' ἀΐδιός τε καὶ ἐκ τοῦ Πατρός ἐστι, καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ πρᾶγμα δείκνυσι· καὶ ἡ ἐρώτησις δὲ τῶν αἱρετικῶν πρὸς τοὺς γονέας διελέγχῃ τὴν κακόνοιαν αὐτῶν. Ἔγνωσαν γὰρ τὸ κατὰ φύσιν, καὶ λοιπὸν καὶ περὶ τῶν χρόνων ᾐσχύνθησαν. Ὅτι δὲ οὐ δεῖ τὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννησιν παρα βάλλειν τῇ τῶν ἀνθρώπων φύσει, καὶ νομίζειν μέρος εἶναι τοῦ Θεοῦ τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ, ἢ ὅλως τι πάθος ση μαίνειν τὴν γέννησιν, φθάσαντες μὲν εἴπομεν ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν, καὶ νῦν δὲ τὰ αὐτά φαμεν· Οὐκ ἔστιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Θεός. Ἄνθρωποι μὲν γὰρ παθητικῶς γεννῶσι, ῥευστὴν ἔχοντες τὴν φύσιν, καὶ χρόνους ἀναμένοντες διὰ τὴν ἀσθένειαν τῆς ἰδίας φύσεως· ἐπὶ δὲ Θεοῦ τοῦτο λέγειν οὐκ ἔστιν. Οὐ γὰρ ἐκ μερῶν συγκείμενός ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἀπαθὴς ὢν καὶ ἁπλοῦς, ἀπαθῶς καὶ ἀμερίστως τοῦ Υἱοῦ Πατήρ ἐστι· καὶ τούτου πάλιν μέγα τεκμήριον καὶ ἀπόδειξις ἐκ τῶν θείων Γραφῶν. Ὁ Λόγος γὰρ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς Λόγος ἐστὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ Σοφία· Λόγος δὲ καὶ Σοφία, οὔτε κτίσμα οὔτε μέ ρος ἐστὶ τούτου, οὗ καὶ ἔστι Λόγος, οὔτε κατὰ πάθος ἐστὶ γέννημα. Ἀμφότερα γοῦν ἡ Γραφὴ συνάπτουσα, Υἱὸν μὲν ἔφησεν, ἵνα τὸ φύσει καὶ ἀληθινὸν τῆς οὐσίας γέννημα εὐαγγελίσηται. Ἵνα δὲ μή τις ἀν θρώπινον ὑπολάβοι τὸ γέννημα, πάλιν τὴν οὐσίαν αὐτοῦ σημαίνων, Λόγον αὐτὸν εἶναι καὶ Σοφίαν καὶ ἀπαύγασμά φησιν. Ἐκ γὰρ τούτου καὶ τὸ ἀπαθὲς τῆς γεννήσεως, καὶ τὸ ἀΐδιον, καὶ τῷ Θεῷ πρέπον λογιζόμεθα. Ποῖον οὖν πάθος, ἢ ποῖον μέρος ἐστὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ἡ Σοφία, καὶ τὸ ἀπαύγασμα; Καὶ τοῦτο δυνατὸν καὶ αὐτοὺς τοὺς ἄφρονας μαθεῖν. Ὡς γὰρ γυναικῶν ἐπύθοντο περὶ υἱοῦ, οὕτως καὶ ἄνδρας ἐπερωτάτωσαν περὶ τοῦ λόγου, ἵνα μά θωσιν, ὅτι οὔτε πάθος αὐτῶν, οὔτε μέρος ἐστὶ τοῦ νοῦ τούτων ὁ Λόγος ὃν προφέρονται. Εἰ δὲ τῶν ἀν θρώπων, καίτοι παθητῶν ὄντων καὶ μεριστῶν ὄν των, τοιοῦτος ὁ λόγος, διὰ τί περὶ τοῦ ἀσωμάτου καὶ ἀμερίστου Θεοῦ πάθη καὶ μέρη λογίζονται, ἵνα, τοῦτο προσποιούμενοι δῆθεν εὐλαβεῖσθαι, ἀρνήσωνται τὴν ἀληθῆ καὶ φύσει γέννησιν τοῦ Υἱοῦ; καὶ ὅτι μὲν τὸ ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ γέννημα οὐκ ἔστι πάθος, ἱκανῶς διὰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν ἀποδέδεικται· δέδεικται δὲ καὶ ἰδίᾳ νῦν ὁ Λόγος οὐ κατὰ πάθος γεννώμενος. Ἀκουέτωσαν δὲ καὶ περὶ τῆς σοφίας τὰ αὐτά· οὐκ ἔστιν ὡς ἄνθρωπος ὁ Θεός· μὴ ἀνθρώπινον φαν ταζέσθωσαν καὶ ἐν τούτῳ περὶ αὐτοῦ. Καὶ γὰρ τῶν ἀνθρώπων πάλιν δεκτικῶν σοφίας γεγονότων, ὁ Θεὸς οὐδενὸς μετέχων, αὐτὸς τῆς ἑαυτοῦ σοφίας πατήρ ἐστιν. ἧς οἱ μετέχοντες εἰώθασι σοφοὶ καλεῖσθαι· καὶ ἔστι καὶ αὐτὴ ἡ σοφία, οὐ πάθος, οὐδὲ μέρος, ἀλλὰ γέννημα ἴδιον τοῦ πατρός. ∆ιὰ τοῦτο ἀεὶ Πα τὴρ, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιγέγονε τῷ Θεῷ τὸ πατὴρ, ἵνα μὴ καὶ τρεπτὸς εἶναι νομισθῇ. Εἰ γὰρ καλὸν τὸ εἶναι αὐτὸν Πατέρα, οὐκ ἀεὶ δὲ ἦν πατήρ· οὐκ ἀεὶ ἄρα τὸ καλὸν ἦν ἐν αὐτῷ. Ἀλλ' ἰδοὺ, φασὶ, καὶ ἀεὶ ποιητής ἐστιν ὁ Θεὸς, καὶ οὐκ ἐπιγέγονεν αὐτῷ τοῦ δημιουργεῖν ἡ δύναμις· ἆρ' οὖν, ἐπειδὴ δημιουργός ἐστιν, ἀΐδιά ἐστι καὶ τὰ ποιήματα, καὶ οὐ θέμις εἰπεῖν οὐδὲ ἐπὶ τούτων, Οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ; Ἄφρονες οἱ Ἀρειανοί· τί γὰρ ὅμοιον υἱὸς καὶ ποίημα, ἵνα τὰ ἐπὶ τοῦ πατρὸς ταῦτα καὶ ἐπὶ τῶν δημιουργῶν εἴπωσι; Πῶς δὲ, το σαύτης διαφορᾶς ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν δειχθείσης γεν νήματος καὶ ποιήματος, ἐμμένουσι τῇ ἀμαθίᾳ; Πά λιν οὖν τὸ αὐτὸ λεκτέον, Τὸ ποίημα ἔξωθεν τοῦ ποι οῦντός ἐστιν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἴδιον τῆς οὐ σίας γέννημά ἐστι· διὸ καὶ τὸ μὲν ποίημα οὐκ ἀνάγ κη ἀεὶ εἶναι· ὅτε γὰρ βούλεται ὁ δημιουργὸς, ἐργά ζεται· τὸ δὲ γέννημα οὐ βουλήσει ὑπόκειται, ἀλλὰ τῆς οὐσίας ἐστὶν ἰδιότης. Καὶ ποιητὴς μὲν ἂν εἴη καὶ λέγοιτο, κἂν μήπω ᾖ τὰ ἔργα· πατὴρ δὲ οὐκ ἂν λεχθείη οὐδ' ἂν εἴη, μὴ ὑπάρχοντος υἱοῦ. Ἐὰν δὲ περιεργάζωνται, διὰ τί ὁ Θεὸς, ἀεὶ δυνάμενος ποιεῖν, οὐκ ἀεὶ ποιεῖ; μαινομένων μὲν καὶ αὕτη ἡ τόλμα. Τίς γὰρ ἔγνω νοῦν Κυρίου, ἢ τίς σύμβουλος αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο; Ἢ πῶς ἐρεῖ τὸ πλάσμα τῷ κεραμεῖ, Τί με οὕτως ἐποίησας; Ἵνα δὲ, κἂν ἀμυδρόν τινα λογισμὸν εὑρόντες, μὴ σιωπήσωμεν, ἀκουέτωσαν· Ὅτι, εἰ καὶ τῷ Θεῷ δυνατὸν ἀεὶ ποιεῖν, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἠδύνατο τὰ γενητὰ ἀΐδια εἶναι· ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γάρ ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γένηται. Τὰ δὲ οὐκ ὄντα πρὶν γένηται, πῶς ἠδύνατο συνυπάρχειν τῷ ἀεὶ ὄντι Θεῷ; ∆ιὸ καὶ πρὸς τὸ λυσιτελὲς αὐτῶν ἀφορῶν ὁ Θεὸς, ὅτε εἶδεν, ὅτι δύναται γενόμενα διαμένειν, τότε καὶ πεποίηκε πάντα. Καὶ ὥσπερ δυνάμενος καὶ ἐξ ἀρχῆς ἐπὶ τοῦ Ἀδὰμ, ἢ ἐπὶ Νῶε, ἢ ἐπὶ Μωϋσέως ἀποστεῖλαι τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Λόγον, οὐκ ἀπέστει λεν εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων· τοῦτο γὰρ εἶδε λυσιτελεῖν πάσῃ τῇ κτίσει· οὕτω καὶ τὰ γενητὰ, ὅτε ἠθέλησε καὶ λυσιτελὲς ἦν αὐτοῖς, ἐποίησεν. Ὁ δέ γε Υἱὸς, οὐκ ὢν ποίημα ἀλλ' ἴδιος τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀεὶ ἔστιν· ἀεὶ γὰρ ὄντος τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἀεὶ εἶναι δεῖ καὶ τὸ ἴδιον τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ, ὅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Λόγος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἡ σοφία. Καὶ τὰ μὲν κτίσματα κἂν μηδέπω ὑπάρχῃ, οὐκ ἐλαττοῖ τὸν ποιητήν· ἔχει γὰρ τὸ δύνασθαι δημιουργεῖν, ὅτε βούλεται· τὸ δὲ γέννημα, ἐὰν μὴ ἀεὶ συνῇ τῷ Πατρὶ, ἐλάττωμα τῆς τελειότητος τῆς οὐσίας αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. Ὅθεν τὰ μὲν ποιήματα, ὅτε ἠθέλησεν, ἐδημιουργήθη διὰ τοῦ Λόγου αὐτοῦ· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἀεί ἐστιν ἴδιον γέννημα τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίας.