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 was not? and used by the Arians to introduce the latter question. The Regula Fidei answers it at once in the negative by contrary texts. The Arians follow the Valentinians in maintaining a precedent will; which really is only exercised by God towards creatures. Instances from Scripture. Inconsistency of Asterius. If the Son by will, there must be another Word before Him. If God is good, or exist, by His will, then is the Son by His will. If He willed to have reason or wisdom, then is His Word and Wisdom at His will. The Son is the Living Will, and has all titles which denote connaturality. That will which the Father has to the Son, the Son has to the Father. The Father wills the Son and the Son wills the Father.

58. (continued). But1382    This chapter is in a very different style from the foregoing portions of this Book, and much more resembles the former two; not only in its subject and the mode of treating it, but in the words introduced, e.g. ἐπισπείρουσι, ἐπινοοῦσι, γογγύζουσι, καθ᾽ ὑμᾶς, ἄτοπον, λεξείδιον, εἷς τῶν πάντων, &c. And the references are to the former Orations., as it seems, a heretic is a wicked thing in truth, and in every respect his heart is depraved1383    See 50, n. 10; Serap. i. 18. and irreligious. For behold, though convicted on all points, and shewn to be utterly bereft of understanding, they feel no shame; but as the hydra of Gentile fable, when its former serpents were destroyed, gave birth to fresh ones, contending against the slayer of the old by the production of new, so also they, hostile1384    θεομάχοι, de Decr. 3, n. 1; Or. ii. 32, n. 4. Vid. Dissert. by Bucher on the word in Acts v. 39. ap. Thesaur. Theol. Phil. N. T. t. 2. and hateful to God1385    θεοστυγεῖς, §40., as hydras1386    §64, note., losing their life in the objections which they advance, invent for themselves other questions Judaic and foolish, and new expedients, as if Truth were their enemy, thereby to shew the rather that they are Christ’s opponents in all things.

59. After so many proofs against them, at which even the devil who is their father1387    Or. ii. 73, n. 7. had himself been abashed and gone back, again as from their perverse heart they mutter forth other expedients, sometimes in whispers, sometimes with the drone1388    περιβομβοῦσι. De Decr. 14, n. 1; also de Fug. 2, 6. Naz. Orat. 27, 2. c. of gnats; ‘Be it so,’ say they; ‘interpret these places thus, and gain the victory in reasonings and proofs; still you must say that the Son has received being from the Father at His will and pleasure;’ for thus they deceive many, putting forward the will and the pleasure of God. Now if any of those who believe aright1389    S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as ‘Son of God according to the will (θέλημα) and power of God.’ ad Smyrn. 1. S. Justin as ‘God and Son according to His will, βουλήν.’ Tryph. 127, and ‘begotten from the Father at His will, θελήσει.’ ibid. 61. and he says, δυνάμει καὶ βουλῇ αὐτοῦ. ibid. 128. S. Clement ‘issuing from the Father’s will itself quicker than light.’ Gent. 10 fin. S. Hippolytus, ‘Whom God the Father, willing, βουληθείς, begat as He willed, ὡς ἠθέλησεν. contr. Noet. 16. Origen, ἐκ θελήματος. ap. Justin. ad. Menn. vid. also cum filius charitatis etiam voluntatis. Periarch. iv. 28. were to say this in simplicity, there would be no cause to be suspicious of the expression, the right intention1390    διανοίας interpretation, §26, n. 9. prevailing over that somewhat simple use of words1391    Cf. Ep. Æg. 8. and supr. ii. 3. Also Letter 54 fin. Vid. supr. de Decr. 10, n. 3. And vid. Leont. contr.Nest. iii. 41. (p. 581. Canis.) He here seems alluding to the Semi-Arians, Origen, and perhaps the earlier Fathers.. But since the phrase is from the heretics1392    Tatian had said θελήματι προπηδᾷ ὁ λόγος. Gent. 5. Tertullian had said, ‘Ut primum voluit Deus ea edere, ipsum primum protulit sermonem. adv. Prax. 6. Novatian, Ex quo, quando ipse voluit, Sermo filius natus est. de Trin. 31. And Constit. Apost. τὸν πρὸ αἰ& 240·νων εὐδοκί& 139· τοῦ πατρὸς γεννηθέντα. vii. 41. Pseudo-Clem. Genuit Deus voluntate præcedente. Recognit. iii. 10. Eusebius, κατὰ γνώμην καὶ προαίρεσιν βουληθεὶς ὁ θεός· ἐκ τῆς τοῦ πατρὸς βουλῆς καὶ δυνάμεως. Dem. iv. 3. Arius, θελήματι καὶ βουλῇ ὑπέστη. ap. Theod. H. E. i. 4. p. 750. vid. also de Syn. 16. and the words of heretics are suspicious, and, as it is written, ‘The wicked are deceitful,’ and ‘The words of the wicked are deceit1393    Prov. xii. 5, 6. LXX.,’ even though they but make signs1394    De Decr. 20., for their heart is depraved, come let us examine this phrase also, lest, though convicted on all sides, still, as hydras, they invent a fresh word, and by such clever language and specious evasion, they sow again that irreligion of theirs in another way. For he who says, ‘The Son came to be at the Divine will,’ has the same meaning as another who says, ‘Once He was not,’ and ‘The Son came to be out of nothing,’ and ‘He is a creature.’ But since they are now ashamed of these phrases, these crafty ones have endeavoured to convey their meaning in another way, putting forth the word ‘will,’ as cuttlefish their blackness, thereby to blind the simple1395    p. 69. n. 8., and to keep in mind their peculiar heresy. For whence1396    And so supr. de Decr. 18, ‘by what Saint have they been taught “at will?”’ That is, no one ever taught it in the sense in which they explained it; that he has just said, ‘He who says “at will” has the same meaning as he who says “Once He was not.”’ Cf. below §§61, 64, 66. Certainly as the earlier Fathers had used the phrase, so those who came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the passage in contr.Eun. vii. referred to in the next note. And Hilar. Syn. 37. The same father says, unitate Patris et virtute. Psalm xci. 8. and ut voluit, ut potuit, ut scit qui genuit. Trin. iii. 4. And he addresses Him as non invidum bonorum tuorum in Unigeniti tui nativitate. ibid. vi. 21. S. Basil too speaks of our Lord as αὐτοζωὴν καὶ αὐτοάγαθον, ‘from the quickening Fountain, the Father’s goodness, ἀγαθότητος.’ contr. Eun. ii. 25. And Cæsarius calls Him ἀγάπην πατρός. Quæst. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr. adv. Scrut. R. vi. 1. Oxf. Tra. and note there. Maximus Taurin. says, that God is per omnipotentiam Pater. Hom. de trad. Symb. p. 270. ed. 1784, vid. also Chrysol. Serm. 61. Ambros. de Fid. iv. 8. Petavius refers in addition to such passages as one just quoted from S. Hilary, which speak of God as not invidus, so as not to communicate Himself, since He was able. Si non potuit, infirmus; si non voluit, invidus. August. contr. Maxim. iii. 7. bring they ‘by will and pleasure?’ or from what Scripture? let them say, who are so suspicious in their words and so inventive of irreligion. For the Father who revealed from heaven His own Word, declared, ‘This is My beloved Son;’ and by David He said, ‘My heart uttered a good Word;’ and John He bade say, ‘In the beginning was the Word;’ and David says in the Psalm, ‘With Thee is the well of life, and in Thy light shall we see light;’ and the Apostle writes, ‘Who being the Radiance of Glory,’ and again, ‘Who being in the form of God,’ and, ‘Who is the Image of the invisible God1397    Matt. iii. 17; Ps. xlv. 1; John i. 1; Ps. xxxvi. 9; Heb. i. 3; Phil. ii. 26; Col. i. 15..’

60. All everywhere tell us of the being of the Word, but none of His being ‘by will,’ nor at all of His making; but they, where, I ask, did they find will or pleasure ‘precedent1398    προηγουμένην and 61 fin. The antecedens voluntas has been mentioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. note 11. For Ptolemy vid. Epiph. Hær. p. 215. The Catholics, who allowed that our Lord was θελήσει, explained it as a σύνδρομος θέλησις, and not a προηγουμένη; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 56. And with the same meaning S. Ambrose, nec voluntas ante Filium nec potestas. de Fid. v. 224. And S. Gregory Nyssen, ‘His immediate union, ἄμεσος συνάφεια, does not exclude the Father’s will, βούλησιν, nor does that will separate the Son from the Father.’ contr. Eunom. vii. p. 206, 7. vid. the whole passage. The alternative which these words, σύνδρομος and προηγουμένη, expressed was this; whether an act of Divine Purpose or Will took place before the Generation of the Son, or whether both the Will and the Generation were eternal, as the Divine Nature was eternal. Hence Bull says, with the view of exculpating Novatian, Cum Filius dicitur ex Patre, quando ipse voluit, nasci. Velle illud Patris æternum fuisse intelligendum. Defens. F. N. iii. 8. §8.’ to the Word of God, unless forsooth, leaving the Scriptures, they simulate the perverseness of Valentinus? For Ptolemy the Valentinian said that the Unoriginate had a pair of attributes, Thought and Will, and first He thought and then He willed; and what He thought, He could not put forth1399    προβάλλειν, de Syn. 16, n. 8., unless when the power of the Will was added. Thence the Arians taking a lesson, wish will and pleasure to precede the Word. For them then, let them rival the doctrine of Valentinus; but we, when we read the divine discourses, found ‘He was’ applied to the Son, but of Him only did we hear as being in the Father and the Father’s Image; while in the case of things originate only, since also by nature these things once were not, but afterwards came to be1400    ἐπιγέγονε, Or. i. 25, 28 fin. iii. 6., did we recognise a precedent will and pleasure, David saying in the hundred and thirteenth Psalm, ‘As for our God He is in heaven, He hath done whatsoever pleased Him,’ and in the hundred and tenth, ‘The works of the Lord are great, sought out unto all His good pleasure;’ and again, in the hundred and thirty-fourth, ‘Whatsoever the Lord pleased, that did He in heaven, and in earth, and in the sea, and in all deep places1401    Ps. cxv. 3; cxi. 2. LXX.; cxxxv. 6..’ If then He be work and thing made, and one among others, let Him, as others, be said ‘by will’ to have come to be, and Scripture shews that these are thus brought into being. And Asterius, the advocate1402    Cf. ii. n. 1. for the heresy, acquiesces, when he thus writes, ‘For if it be unworthy of the Framer of all, to make at pleasure, let His being pleased be removed equally in the case of all, that His Majesty be preserved unimpaired. Or if it be befitting God to will, then let this better way obtain in the case of the first Offspring. For it is not possible that it should be fitting for one and the same God to make things at His pleasure, and not at His will also.’ In spite of the Sophist having introduced abundant irreligion in his words, namely, that the Offspring and the thing made are the same, and that the Son is one offspring out of all offsprings that are, He ends with the conclusion that it is fitting to say that the works are by will and pleasure.

61. Therefore if He be other than all things, as has been above shewn1403    Cf. ii. 18–43., and through Him the works rather came to be, let not ‘by will’ be applied to Him, or He has similarly come to be as the things consist which through Him come to be. For Paul, whereas he was not before, became afterwards an Apostle ‘by the will of God1404    1 Cor. i. 1, &c.;’ and our own calling, as itself once not being, but now taking place afterwards, is preceded by will, and, as Paul himself says again, has been made ‘according to the good pleasure of His will1405    Eph. i. 5..’ And what Moses relates, ‘Let there be light,’ and ‘Let the earth appear,’ and ‘Let Us make man,’ is, I think, according to what has gone before1406    ii. 31 seqq., significant of the will of the Agent. For things which once were not but happened afterwards from external causes, these the Framer counsels to make; but His own Word begotten from Him by nature, concerning Him He did not counsel beforehand; for in Him the Father makes, in Him frames, other things whatever He counsels; as also James the Apostle teaches, saying, ‘Of His own will begat He us with the Word of truth1407    James i. 18..’ Therefore the Will of God concerning all things, whether they be begotten again or are brought into being at the first, is in His Word, in whom He both makes and begets again what seems right to Him; as the Apostle1408    1 Thess. v. 18. again signifies, writing to Thessalonica; ‘for this is the will of God in Christ Jesus concerning you.’ But if, in whom He makes, in Him also is the will, and in Christ is the pleasure of the Father, how can He, as others, come into being by will and pleasure? For if He too came to be as you maintain, by will, it follows that the will concerning Him consists in some other Word, through whom He in turn comes to be; for it has been shewn that God’s will is not in the things which He brings into being, but in Him through whom and in whom all things made are brought to be. Next, since it is all one to say ‘By will’ and Once He was not,’ let them make up their minds to say, ‘Once He was not,’ that, perceiving with shame that times are signified by the latter, they may understand that to say ‘by will’ is to place times before the Son; for counselling goes before things which once were not, as in the case of all creatures. But if the Word is the Framer of the creatures, and He coexists with the Father, how can to counsel precede the Everlasting as if He were not? for if counsel precedes, how through Him are all things? For rather He too, as one among others is by will begotten to be a Son, as we too were made sons by the Word of Truth; and it rests, as was said, to seek another Word, through whom He too has come to be, and was begotten together with all things, which were according to God’s pleasure.

62. If then there is another Word of God, then be the Son originated by a word; but if there be not, as is the case, but all things by Him have come to be, which the Father has willed, does not this expose the many-headed1409    64, note 4. craftiness of these men? that feeling shame at saying ‘work,’ and ‘creature,’ and ‘God’s Word was not before His generation,’ yet in another way they assert that He is a creature, putting forward ‘will,’ and saying, ‘Unless He has by will come to be, therefore God had a Son by necessity and against His good pleasure.’ And who is it then who imposes necessity on Him, O men most wicked, who draw everything to the purpose of your heresy? for what is contrary to will they see; but what is greater and transcends it has escaped their perception. For as what is beside purpose is contrary to will, so what is according to nature transcends and precedes counselling1410    Thus he makes the question a nugatory one, as if it did not go to the point, and could not be answered, or might be answered either way, as the case might be. Really Nature and Will go together in the Divine Being, but in order, as we regard Him, Nature is first, Will second, and the generation belongs to Nature, not to Will. And so supr.Or. i. 29; ii. 2. In like manner S. Epiphanius, Hær. 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51. vid. also Ambros. de Fid. iv. 4. vid. others, as collected in Petav. Trin. vi. 8. §§14–16.. A man by counsel builds a house, but by nature he begets a son; and what is in building began to come into being at will, and is external to the maker; but the son is proper offspring of the father’s essence, and is not external to him; wherefore neither does he counsel concerning him, lest he appear to counsel about himself. As far then as the Son transcends the creature, by so much does what is by nature transcend the will1411    Two distinct meanings may be attached to ‘by will’ (as Dr. Clark observes, Script. Doct. p. 142. ed. 1738), either a concurrence or acquiescence, or a positive act. S. Cyril uses it in the former sense, when he calls it σύνδρομος, as quoted §60, n. 1; and when he says (with Athan. infr.) that ‘the Father wills His own subsistence, θεληγής ἐστι, but is not what He is from any will, ἐκ βουλήσεως τινός,’ Thes. p. 56; Dr. Clark would understand it in the latter sense, with a view of inferring that the Son was subsequent to a Divine act, i.e. not eternal; but what Athan. says leads to the conclusion, that it does not matter which sense is taken. He does not meet the Arian objection, ‘if not by will therefore by necessity,’ by speaking of a concomitant will, or merely saying that the Almighty exists or is good, by will, with S. Cyril, but he says that ‘nature transcends will and necessity also.’ Accordingly, Petavius is even willing to allow that the ἐκ βουλῆς is to be ascribed to the γέννησις in the sense which Dr. Clark wishes, i.e. he grants that it may precede the γέννησις, i.e. in order, not in time, in the succession of our ideas, Trin. vi. 8, §§20, 21; and follows S. Austin, Trin. xv. 20. in preferring to speak of our Lord rather as voluntas de voluntate, than, as Athan. is led to do, as the voluntas Dei.. And they, on hearing of Him, ought not to measure by will what is by nature; forgetting however that they are hearing about God’s Son, they dare to apply human contrarieties in the instance of God, ‘necessity’ and ‘beside purpose,’ to be able thereby to deny that there is a true Son of God. For let them tell us themselves,—that God is good and merciful, does this attach to Him by will or not? if by will, we must consider that He began to be good, and that His not being good is possible; for to counsel and choose implies an inclination two ways, and is incidental to a rational nature. But if it be too unseemly that He should be called good and merciful upon will, then what they have said themselves must be retorted on them,—‘therefore by necessity and not at His pleasure He is good;’ and, ‘who is it that imposes this necessity on Him?’ But if it be unseemly to speak of necessity in the case of God, and therefore it is by nature that He is good, much more is He, and more truly, Father of the Son by nature and not by will.

63. Moreover let them answer us this:—(for against their shamelessness I wish to urge a further question, bold indeed, but with a religious intent; be propitious, O Lord1412    Vid. Or. i. 25, n. 2. Also Serap. i. 15, 16 init. 17, 20; iv. 8, 14. Ep. Æg. 11 fin. Didym. Trin. iii. 3. p. 341. Ephr. Syr. adv. Hær. Serm. 55 init. (t. 2. p. 557.) Facund. Tr. Cap. iii. 3 init.!)—the Father Himself, does He exist, first having counselled, then being pleased, or before counselling? For since they are so bold in the instance of the Word, they must receive the like answer, that they may know that this their presumption reaches even to the Father Himself. If then they shall themselves take counsel about will, and say that even He is from will, what then was He before He counselled, or what gained He, as ye consider, after counselling? But if such a question be unseemly and self-destructive, and shocking even to ask (for it is enough only to hear God’s Name for us to know and understand that He is He that Is), will it not also be against reason to have parallel thoughts concerning the Word of God, and to make pretences of will and pleasure? for it is enough in like manner only to hear the Name of the Word, to know and understand that He who is God not by will, has not by will but by nature His own Word. And does it not surpass all conceivable madness, to entertain the thought only, that God Himself counsels and considers and chooses and proceeds to have a good pleasure, that He be not without Word and without Wisdom, but have both? for He seems to be considering about Himself, who counsels about what is proper to His Essence. There being then much blasphemy in such a thought, it will be religious to say that things originate have come to be ‘by favour and will,’ but the Son is not a work of will, nor has come after1413    ἐπιγεγονώς, §60, n. 3., as the creation, but is by nature the own Offspring of God’s Essence. For being the own Word of the Father, He allows us not to account1414    λογίσασθαί τινα βούλησιν, as §66 (Latin version inexact). of will as before Himself, since He is Himself the Father’s Living Counsel1415    ἀγαθοῦ πατρὸς ἀγαθὸν βούλημα. Clem. Ped. iii. circ. fin. σοφία, χρηστότης, δύναμις, θέλημα παντοκρατορικόν. Strom. v. p. 547. Voluntas et potestas patris. Tertull. Orat. 4. Natus ex Patri quasi voluntas ex mente procedens. Origen. Periarch. i. 2. §6. S. Jerome notices the same interpretation of ‘by the will of God’ in the beginning of Comment. in Ephes. But cf. Aug. Trin. xv. 20. And so Cæsarius, ἀγάπη ἐξ ἀγάπης. Qu. 39., and Power, and Framer of the things which seemed good to the Father. And this is what He says of Himself in the Proverbs; ‘Counsel is mine and security, mine is understanding, and mine strength1416    Prov. viii. 14..’ For as, although Himself the ‘Understanding,’ in which He prepared the heavens, and Himself ‘Strength and Power’ (for Christ is ‘God’s Power and God’s Wisdom’1417    1 Cor. i. 24.), He here has altered the terms and said, ‘Mine is understanding’ and ‘Mine strength,’ so while He says, ‘Mine is counsel,’ He must Himself be the Living1418    ζῶσα βουλή. supr. Ορ. ii. 2. Cyril in Joan. p. 213. ζῶσα δύναμις. Sabell. Greg. 5. c. ζῶσα εἴκων. Naz. Orat. 30, 20. c. ζῶσα ἐνέργεια. Syn. Antioch. ap. Routh. Reliqu. t. 2. p. 469. ζῶσα ἴσχυς. Cyril. in Joan. p. 951. ζῶσα σοφία. Origen. contr. Cels. iii. fin. ζῶν λόγος. Origen. ibid. ζῶν ὄργανον (heretically) Euseb. Dem. iv. 2. Counsel of the Father; as we have learned from the Prophet also, that He becomes ‘the Angel of great Counsel1419    Is. ix. 6.,’ and was called the good pleasure of the Father; for thus we must refute them, using human illustrations1420    Or. ii. 33, n. 12. concerning God.

64. Therefore if the works subsist ‘by will and favour,’ and the whole creature is made ‘at God’s good pleasure,’ and Paul was called to be an Apostle ‘by the will of God,’ and our calling has come about ‘by His good pleasure and will,’ and all things have come into being through the Word, He is external to the things which have come to be by will, but rather is Himself the Living Counsel of the Father, by which all these things have come to be; by which David also gives thanks in the seventy-second Psalm. ‘Thou hast holden me by my right hand; Thou shalt guide me with Thy Counsel1421    Ps. lxxiii. 23, 24..’ How then can the Word, being the Counsel and Good Pleasure of the Father, come into being Himself ‘by good pleasure and will,’ like every one else? unless, as I said before, in their madness they repeat that He has come into being through Himself, or through some other1422    δι᾽ ἑτέρου τινος. This idea has been urged against the Arians again and again, as just above, §61; e.g. de Decr. 8, 24; Or. i. 15, below 65, sub. fin. vid. also Epiph. Hær. 76. p. 951. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 11. c. 17, a. &c.. Who then is it through whom He has come to be? let them fashion another Word; and let them name another Christ, rivalling the doctrine of Valentinus1423    §60.; for Scripture it is not. And though they fashion another, yet assuredly he too comes into being through some one; and so, while we are thus reckoning up and investigating the succession of them, the many-headed1424    πολυκέφαλος αἵρεσις. And so πολυκ. πανουργία, §62. The allusion is to the hydra, with its ever-springing heads, as introduced §58, n. 5. and with a special allusion to Asterius who is mentioned, §60, and in de Syn. 18. is called πολυκ. σοφιστής. heresy of the Atheists1425    Or. ii. 43, n. 4. is discovered to issue in polytheism1426    §16, n. 4. and madness unlimited; in the which, wishing the Son to be a creature and from nothing, they imply the same thing in other words by pretending the words will and pleasure, which rightly belong to things originate and creatures. Is it not irreligious then to impute the characteristics of things originate to the Framer of all? and is it not blasphemous to say that will was in the Father before the Word? for if will precedes in the Father, the Son’s words are not true, ‘I in the Father;’ or even if He is in the Father, yet He will hold but a second place, and it became Him not to say ‘I in the Father,’ since will was before Him, in which all things were brought into being and He Himself subsisted, as you hold. For though He excel in glory, He is not the less one of the things which by will come into being. And, as we have said before, if it be so, how is He Lord and they servants1427    Or. i. 57; ii. 23.? but He is Lord of all, because He is one with the Father’s Lordship; and the creation is all in bondage, since it is external to the Oneness of the Father, and, whereas it once was not, was brought to be.

65. Moreover, if they say that the Son is by will, they should say also that He came to be by understanding; for I consider understanding and will to be the same. For what a man counsels, about that also he has understanding; and what he has in understanding, that also he counsels. Certainly the Saviour Himself has made them correspond, as being cognate, when He says, ‘Counsel is mine and security; mine is understanding, and mine strength1428    Prov. viii. 14..’ For as strength and security are the same (for they mean one attribute), so we may say that Understanding and Counsel are the same, which is the Lord. But these irreligious men are unwilling that the Son should be Word and Living Counsel; but they fable that there is with God1429    περὶ τὸν θεόν. vid. de Decr. 22, n. 1; Or. i. 15. Also Orat. i. 27, where (n. 2 a.), it is mistranslated. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. vid. de Syn. 34, n. 7., as if a habit1430    ἕξιν. vid. Or. ii. 38, n. 6; iv. 2, n. 7., coming and going1431    συμβαινούσαν καὶ ἀποσυμβαινούσαν, vid. de Decr. 11, n. 7, and 22, n. 9, σύμβαμα, Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. p. 150. in the same, though a technical sense. vid. also Serap. i. 26; Naz. Orat. 31, 15 fin., after the manner of men, understanding, counsel, wisdom; and they leave nothing undone, and they put forward the ‘Thought’ and ‘Will’ of Valentinus, so that they may but separate the Son from the Father, and may call Him a creature instead of the proper Word of the Father. To them then must be said what was said to Simon Magus; ‘the irreligion of Valentinus perish with you1432    Acts viii. 20.;’ and let every one rather trust to Solomon, who says, that the Word is Wisdom and Understanding. For he says, ‘The Lord by Wisdom founded the earth, by Understanding He established the heavens.’ And as here by Understanding, so in the Psalms, ‘By the Word of the Lord were the heavens made.’ And as by the Word the heavens, so ‘He hath done whatsoever pleased Him.’ And as the Apostle writes to Thessalonians, ‘the will of God is in Christ Jesus1433    Prov. iii. 19; Ps. xxxiii. 6; cxxxv. 6, cxv. 3; 1 Thess. v. 18..’ The Son of God then, He is the ‘Word’ and the ‘Wisdom;’ He the ‘Understanding’ and the Living ‘Counsel;’ and in Him is the ‘Good Pleasure of the Father;’ He is ‘Truth’ and ‘Light’ and ‘Power’ of the Father. But if the Will of God is Wisdom and Understanding, and the Son is Wisdom, he who says that the Son is ‘by will,’ says virtually that Wisdom has come into being in wisdom, and the Son is made in a son, and the Word created through the Word1434    Read ‘a word,’ cf. p. 394, n. 6.; which is incompatible with God and is opposed to His Scriptures. For the Apostle proclaims the Son to be the own Radiance and Expression, not of the Father’s will1435    De Syn. 53, n. 9., but of His Essence1436    οὐσία and ὑπόστασις are in these passages made synonymous; and so infr. Orat. iv. 1, f. And in iv. 33 fin. to the Son is attributed ἡ πατρικὴ ὑπόστασις. Vid. also ad Afros. 4. quoted supr. Exc. A, pp. 77, sqq. ῾Υπ. might have been expected too in the discussion in the beginning of Orat. iii. did Athan. distinguish between them. It is remarkable how seldom it occurs at all in these Orations, except as contained in Heb. i. 3. Vid. also p. 70, note 13. Yet the phrase τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις is certainly found in Illud Omn. fin. and in Incarn. c. Arian. 10. (if genuine) and apparently in Expos. Fid. 2. Vid. also Orat. iv. 25 init. Itself, saying, ‘Who being the Radiance of His glory and the Expression of His Subsistence1437    Heb. i. 3..’ But if, as we have said before, the Father’s Essence and Subsistence be not from will, neither, as is very plain, is what is proper to the Father’s Subsistence from will; for such as, and so as, that Blessed Subsistence, must also be the proper Offspring from It. And accordingly the Father Himself said not, ‘This is the Son originated at My will,’ nor ‘the Son whom I have by My favour,’ but simply ‘My Son,’ and more than that, ‘in whom I am well pleased;’ meaning by this, This is the Son by nature; and ‘in Him is lodged My will about what pleases Me.’

66. Since then the Son is by nature and not by will, is He without the pleasure of the Father and not with the Father’s will? No, verily; but the Son is with the pleasure of the Father, and, as He says Himself, ‘The Father loveth the Son, and sheweth Him all things1438    John iii. 35; v. 20..’ For as not ‘from will’ did He begin to be good, nor yet is good without will and pleasure (for what He is, that also is His pleasure), so also that the Son should be, though it came not ‘from will,’ yet it is not without His pleasure or against His purpose. For as His own Subsistence is by His pleasure, so also the Son, being proper to His Essence, is not without His pleasure. Be then the Son the object of the Father’s pleasure and love; and thus let every one religiously account of1439    63, n. 3. the pleasure and the not-unwillingness of God. For by that good pleasure wherewith the Son is the object of the Father’s pleasure, is the Father the object of the Son’s love, pleasure, and honour; and one is the good pleasure which is from Father in Son, so that here too we may contemplate the Son in the Father and the Father in the Son. Let no one then, with Valentinus, introduce a precedent will; nor let any one, by this pretence of ‘counsel,’ intrude between the Only Father and the Only Word; for it were madness to place will and consideration between them. For it is one thing to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ and another, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards His Son who is His own by nature. For to say, ‘Of will He came to be,’ in the first place implies that once He was not; and next it implies an inclination two ways, as has been said, so that one might suppose that the Father could even not will the Son. But to say of the Son, ‘He might not have been,’ is an irreligious presumption reaching even to the Essence of the Father, as if what is His own might not have been. For it is the same as saying, ‘The Father might not have been good.’ And as the Father is always good by nature, so He is always generative1440    Or. i. 14, n. 4; ii. 2, n. 3. by nature; and to say, ‘The Father’s good pleasure is the Son,’ and ‘The Word’s good pleasure is the Father,’ implies, not a precedent will, but genuineness of nature, and propriety and likeness of Essence. For as in the case of the radiance and light one might say, that there is no will preceding radiance in the light, but it is its natural offspring, at the pleasure of the light which begat it, not by will and consideration, but in nature and truth, so also in the instance of the Father and the Son, one might rightly say, that the Father has love and good pleasure towards the Son, and the Son has love and good pleasure towards the Father.

67. Therefore call not the Son a work of good pleasure; nor bring in the doctrine of Valentinus into the Church; but be He the Living Counsel, and Offspring in truth and nature, as the Radiance from the Light. For thus has the Father spoken, ‘My heart uttered a good Word;’ and the Son conformably, ‘I in the Father and the Father in Me1441    Ps. xlv. 1; John xiv. 10..’ But if the Word be in the heart, where is will? and if the Son in the Father, where is good pleasure? and if He be Will Himself, how is counsel in Will? it is unseemly; lest the Word come into being in a word, and the Son in a son, and Wisdom in a wisdom, as has been repeatedly1442    §2, n. 6, &c. said. For the Son is the Father’s All; and nothing was in the Father before the Word; but in the Word is will also, and through Him the objects of will are carried into effect, as holy Scriptures have shewn. And I could wish that the irreligious men, having fallen into such want of reason1443    De Decr. i. n. 6. as to be considering about will, would now ask their childbearing women no more, whom they used to ask, ‘Hadst thou a son before conceiving him1444    Or. i. 26.?’ but the father, ‘Do ye become fathers by counsel, or by the natural law of your will?’ or ‘Are your children like your nature and essence1445    τῆς οὐσίας ὅμοια, vid. Or. i. 21, n. 8. Also ii. 42, b. iii. 11, 14 sub. fin., 17, n. 5.?’ that, even from fathers they may learn shame, from whom they assumed this proposition1446    Or. ii. 1, n. 13. about birth, and from whom they hoped to gain knowledge in point. For they will reply to them, ‘What we beget, is like, not our good pleasure1447    65, n. 8., but like ourselves; nor become we parents by previous counsel, but to beget is proper to our nature; since we too are images of our fathers.’ Either then let them condemn themselves1448    De Decr. 3, n. 2; Orat. i. 27, ii. 4; Apol. c. Ar. 36., and cease asking women about the Son of God, or let them learn from them, that the Son is begotten not by will, but in nature and truth. Becoming and suitable to them is a refutation from human instances1449    Cf. 63, n. 9., since the perverse-minded men dispute in a human way concerning the Godhead. Why then are Christ’s enemies still mad? for this, as well as their other pretences, is shewn and proved to be mere fantasy and fable; and on this account, they ought, however late, contemplating the precipice of folly down which they have fallen, to rise again from the depth and to flee the snare of the devil, as we admonish them. For Truth is loving unto men and cries continually, ‘If because of My clothing of the body ye believe Me not, yet believe the works, that ye may know that “I am in the Father and the Father in Me,” and “I and the Father are one,” and “He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father1450    John x. 38, 30; xiv. 9; cf. §5, n. 3..”’ But the Lord according to His wont is loving to man, and would fain ‘help them that are fallen,’ as the praise of David1451    Ps. cxlvi. 8. says; but the irreligious men, not desirous to hear the Lord’s voice, nor bearing to see Him acknowledged by all as God and God’s Son, go about, miserable men, as beetles, seeking with their father the devil pretexts for irreligion. What pretexts then, and whence will they be able next to find? unless they borrow blasphemies of Jews and Caiaphas, and take atheism from Gentiles? for the divine Scriptures are closed to them, and from every part of them they are refuted as insensate and Christ’s enemies.

Ἀλλ' ὡς ἔοικε, πονηρὸν ὁ αἱρετικὸς ἀληθῶς, καὶ πανταχόθεν ἐστὶν ἔχων διεφθαρμένην τὴν καρδίαν εἰς ἀσέβειαν. Ἰδοὺ γὰρ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐλεγχόμενοι, καὶ δεικνύμενοι πάσης συνέσεως ἔρημοι, οὐκ αἰσχύ νονται· ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἡ λεγομένη παρὰ τοῖς Ἑλλήνων μύθοις ὕδρα τὸ θηρίον, ἀναιρουμένων τῶν προτέρων ὄφεων, ὤδινεν ἑτέρους ὄφεις, φιλονεικοῦσα πρὸς τὸν ἀναιροῦντα τῇ τῶν ἑτέρων προβολῇ· τὸν αὐτὸν τρό πον καὶ οἱ Θεομάχοι καὶ οἱ Θεοστυγεῖς, ὥσπερ ὕδραι, τὴν ψυχὴν πίπτοντες ἐφ' οἷς προβάλλονται, ἄλλας ἐφευρίσκουσιν Ἰουδαϊκὰς καὶ μωρὰς ἑαυτοῖς ἐκζητήσεις· καὶ ὥσπερ ἔχθραν τὴν ἀλήθειαν ἔχοντες, ἐπινοοῦσι καινότερα, ὅπως μᾶλλον Χριστο μάχους ἑαυτοὺς διὰ πάντων ἐπιδείξωσιν. Μετὰ γὰρ τοὺς τοσούτους κατ' αὐτῶν ἐλέγχους, ἐφ' οἷς καὶ ὁ διάβολος αὐτὸς ὁ τούτων πατὴρ ἐν τραπεὶς ἂν ἀπῆλθεν ὀπίσω, πάλιν ὡς ἀπὸ στρεβλῆς τῆς καρδίας αὐτῶν ἐπινοοῦντες γογγύζουσι, καὶ τοῖς μὲν ψιθυρίζουσι, τοῖς δὲ, ὡς κώνωπες, περιβομβοῦσι λέγοντες· Ἔστω, ταῦτα οὕτως ἑρμηνεύετε, καὶ νι κᾶτε τοῖς λογισμοῖς καὶ ταῖς ἀποδείξεσιν· ἀλλὰ δεῖ λέγειν βουλήσει καὶ θελήσει γεγενῆσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ Πατρός. Καὶ ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ πολλοὺς ἀπατῶσι προβαλλόμενοι τὸ βούλημα καὶ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ. Τοῦτο δὲ εἰ μέν τις τῶν ὀρθῶς πιστευόντων ἁπλού στερον ἔλεγεν, οὐδὲν ἦν ὑποπτεῦσαι περὶ τοῦ λεγομέ νου, νικώσης τῆς ὀρθοδόξου διανοίας τὴν ἁπλου στέραν τῶν ῥημάτων προφοράν· ἐπειδὴ δὲ παρ' αἱ ρετικῶν ἐστιν ἡ φωνὴ, ὕποπτα δὲ τῶν αἱρετικῶν τὰ ῥήματα, καὶ, ὡς γέγραπται, Κυβερνῶσι δὲ ἀσε βεῖς δόλους, καὶ, Οἱ λόγοι αὐτῶν εἰσι δόλιοι, κἂν μόνον νεύσωσι, διεφθαρμένην γὰρ ἔχουσι τὴν καρδίαν· φέρε, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ λεγόμενον ἐξετάσω μεν, μήπως, ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐλεγχθέντες, λοιπὸν, ὡς ὕδραι, καινότερον ἐπενόησαν λεξείδιον, ἵνα διὰ τῆς τοιαύτης κομψολογίας καὶ πιθανῆς ὑφαρπαγῆς τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀσέβειαν πάλιν ἄλλως ἐπισπείρωσι. Ταὐτὸν γὰρ σημαίνει ὁ λέγων, Βουλήσει γέγονεν ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ ὁ λέγων, Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, καὶ, Ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων γέγονεν ὁ Υἱὸς, καὶ κτίσμα ἐστίν. Ἀλλ' ἐπεὶ ταῦτα λέγοντες ᾐσχύνθησαν, ἑτέρως αὐτὰ πάλιν ση μαίνειν ἐπεχείρησαν οἱ δόλιοι, βούλησιν προβαλ λόμενοι, ὡς τὸ μέλαν αἱ σηπίαι, ἵν' ἐν τούτῳ τοὺς μὲν ἀκεραίους σκοτίζωσιν, αὐτοὶ δὲ τῆς ἰδίας αἱρέ σεως μὴ ἐπιλάθωνται. Πόθεν γὰρ τὸ βουλήσει καὶ θελήσει, ἢ ἐκ ποίας Γραφῆς τὰ τοιαῦτα πάλιν προφέρουσιν, εἰπάτωσαν οἱ τοῖς ῥήμασιν ὕποπτοι, καὶ τῆς ἀσεβείας ἐφευρεταί. Ὁ μὲν γὰρ Πατὴρ ἀπο καλύπτων ἀπ' οὐρανοῦ τὸν ἑαυτοῦ Λόγον, ἐδείκνυεν, ὅτι Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός· καὶ διὰ μὲν τοῦ ∆αβὶδ ἔλεγεν· Ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου Λόγον ἀγαθόν· τῷ δὲ Ἰωάννῃ εἰπεῖν ἐνετείλατο· Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ Λόγος· καὶ ὁ ∆αβὶδ δὲ ψάλλων φη σὶν, ὅτι Παρὰ σοὶ πηγὴ ζωῆς, καὶ ἐν τῷ φωτί σου ὀψόμεθα φῶς· ὅ τε Ἀπόστολος γράφει· Ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης· καὶ πάλιν· Ὃς ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων· καὶ, Ὅς ἐστιν εἰκὼν τοῦ Θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. Πανταχοῦ τὸ εἶναι τοῦ Λόγου πάντες καὶ οὐδα μοῦ ἐκ βουλήσεως αὐτὸν οὐδὲ ὅλως πεποιῆσθαι λέ γουσιν· αὐτοὶ δὲ ποῦ ἄρα βούλησιν ἢ θέλησιν προ ηγουμένην εὗρον τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ, εἰ μὴ ἄρα, τὰς Γραφὰς ἀφέντες, ὑποκρίνονται καὶ τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου κακόνοιαν; Πτολεμαῖος γὰρ ὁ Οὐαλεντίνου ἔφη δύο ζυγοὺς ἔχειν τὸν ἀγένητον, ἔννοιαν καὶ θέλησιν· καὶ πρῶτον ἐνενόησεν, εἶτα ἠθέλησε· καὶ ἅπερ ἐν ενόει, οὐκ ἠδύνατο προβάλλειν, εἰ μὴ ὅτε καὶ ἡ τοῦ θελήματος δύναμις ἐπεγένετο. Ἔνθεν οἱ Ἀρειανοὶ μαθόντες, θέλημα καὶ βούλησιν προηγεῖσθαι θέλουσι τοῦ Λόγου. Ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν τὰ Οὐαλεντίνου ζηλούτωσαν· ἡμεῖς δὲ, ἐντυχόντες τοῖς θείοις λόγοις, ἐπὶ μὲν τοῦ Υἱοῦ τὸ, ἦν, εὕρομεν· καὶ αὐτὸν μόνον ἠκούσαμεν ὄντα ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ εἰκόνα τοῦ Πατρός· ἐπὶ δὲ μόνων τῶν γενητῶν, ἐπεὶ καὶ τῇ φύ σει οὐκ ἦν ποτε ταῦτα, ἀλλ' ἐπιγέγονε, προηγουμένην βούλησιν καὶ θέλησιν ἀνέγνωμεν, τοῦ ∆αβὶδ ψάλλον τος ἐν μὲν τῷ ἑκατοστῷ δεκάτῳ τρίτῳ ψαλμῷ οὕτως· Ὁ δὲ Θεὸς ἡμῶν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ πάντα, ὅσα ἠθέλησεν, ἐποίησεν· ἐν δὲ τῷ ἑκατοστῷ δεκάτῳ· Μεγάλα τὰ ἔργα Κυρίου, ἐξ εζητημένα εἰς πάντα τὰ θελήματα αὐτοῦ· καὶ πάλιν ἐν τῷ ἑκατοστῷ τριακοστῷ τετάρτῳ· Πάντα, ὅσα ἠθέ λησεν ὁ Κύριος, ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐν τῇ γῇ καὶ ἐν ταῖς θαλάσσαις καὶ ἐν πάσαις ταῖς ἀβύσσοις. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἔργον καὶ ποίημα, καὶ εἷς τῶν πάντων ἐστὶ, λεγέσθω καὶ αὐτὸς βουλήσει γενό μενος· οὕτω γὰρ ἔδειξεν ἡ Γραφὴ τὰ ποιήματα γίγνεσθαι. Καὶ Ἀστέριος δὲ ὁ συνήγορος τῆς αἱρέ σεως, τούτῳ συντιθέμενος, οὕτως γράφει· «Εἴτε γὰρ ἀνάξιον τοῦ ∆ημιουργοῦ τὸ θέλοντα ποιεῖν, ἐπὶ πάν των ὁμοίως ἀνῃρήσθω τὸ θέλειν, ἵνα ἀκέραιον αὐτῷ σώζηται τὸ ἀξίωμα· εἴτε προσῆκον τῷ Θεῷ τὸ βούλεσθαι, καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ πρώτου γεννήματος ὑπαρχέτω τὸ κρεῖττον. Οὐ γὰρ δὴ δυνατὸν ἑνί τε καὶ τῷ αὐτῷ Θεῷ τὸ θέλειν ἐπὶ τῶν ποιουμένων ἁρμόττειν, καὶ τὸ μὴ βούλεσθαι προσήκειν.» Πλείστην ὅσην ἀσέβειαν ἐν τοῖς ῥήμασιν ἑαυτοῦ συνθεὶς ὁ σοφιστὴς, ὅτι τε τὸ γέννημα καὶ τὸ ποίημα ταὐτόν ἐστι, καὶ εἷς ἐκ πάντων τῶν ὄντων γεννημάτων ἐστὶν ὁ Υἱὸς, εἰς τοῦτο συνέκλεισεν, ὅτι τὰ ποιήματα βουλήματι καὶ θελήματι προσήκει λέγειν. Οὐκοῦν εἰ ἄλλος ἐστὶ τῶν πάντων ὥσπερ καὶ ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τούτων ἐδείχθη, καὶ μᾶλλον τὰ ἔργα δι' αὐτοῦ γέγονε, μὴ λεγέσθω βουλήσει, ἵνα μὴ καὶ αὐτὸς οὕτως γίνηται, ὥσπερ καὶ τὰ δι' αὐτοῦ γενό μενα συνέστη. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ μὲν Παῦλος, οὐκ ὢν πρό τερον, ὕστερον ὅμως διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ ἀπόστολος γέγονεν· ἡ δὲ κλῆσις ἡμῶν, ὥς ποτε καὶ αὐτὴ μὴ οὖσα, νῦν δὲ ἐπιγενομένη, προηγουμένην ἔχει τὴν βούλησιν, καὶ ὡς αὐτὸς πάλιν ὁ Παῦλός φησι, κατὰ τὴν εὐδοκίαν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ γέγονε. Τό τε διὰ Μωσέως λεγόμενον, Γενηθήτω φῶς, καὶ, Ἐξαγαγέτω ἡ γῆ, καὶ, Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον, ἡγοῦ μαι, καθὰ καὶ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπροσθεν εἴρηται, τῆς βουλήσεως τοῦ ποιοῦντος εἶναι τοῦτο σημαντικόν. Τὰ μὲν γὰρ μὴ ὄντα ποτὲ, ἀλλ' ἔξωθεν ἐπιγινόμενα, ὁ ∆ημιουργὸς βουλεύεται ποιῆσαι· τὸν δὲ ἴδιον Λόγον ἐξ αὐτοῦ φύσει γεννώμενον οὐ προβουλεύεται· ἐν τούτῳ γὰρ ὁ Πατὴρ τὰ ἄλλα, ὅσα βουλεύεται, ποιεῖ, καὶ δημιουργεῖ ἐν τούτῳ· καθὼς καὶ Ἰάκωβος ὁ ἀπόστολος διδάσκων ἔλεγε· Βουληθεὶς ἀπεκύησεν ἡμᾶς Λόγῳ ἀληθείας. Οὐκοῦν ἡ περὶ πάντων τῶν τε ἀναγεννωμένων καὶ τῶν ἅπαξ γινομένων τοῦ Θεοῦ βούλησις ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ ἐστὶν, ἐν ᾧ καὶ τὰ δό ξαντα ποιεῖ καὶ ἀναγεννᾷ. Καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ πάλιν ὁ Ἀπόστολος σημαίνει, γράφων εἰς Θεσσαλονίκην· Τοῦτο γὰρ θέλημα Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ εἰς ὑμᾶς. Εἰ δὲ, ἐν ᾧ ποιεῖ, ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἡ βούλη σίς ἐστι, καὶ ἐν Χριστῷ ἐστι τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός· πῶς δύναται καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν βουλήσει καὶ θελήματι γίνεσθαι; Εἰ γὰρ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν βουλήσει καθ' ὑμᾶς γέγονεν, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὴν περὶ αὐτοῦ βούλησιν ἐν ἑτέρῳ τινὶ λόγῳ συνίστασθαι, δι' οὗ καὶ αὐτὸς γίνε ται· δέδεικται γὰρ ἡ τοῦ Θεοῦ βούλησις οὐκ ἐν τοῖς γινομένοις οὖσα, ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ δι' οὗ καὶ ἐν ᾧ γίνεται τὰ ποιήματα πάντα. Ἔπειτα ἐπειδὴ ταὐτόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν βουλήσει, καὶ, Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, ἀρκείσθω σαν τῷ λέγειν, Ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν· ἵνα, αἰσχυνό μενοι διὰ τὸ ἐκ τούτου χρόνους σημαίνεσθαι, γνῶσιν, ὅτι καὶ βουλήσει λέγοντες χρόνους πρὸ Υἱοῦ σημαίνουσι· τῶν γάρ ποτε μὴ ὄντων προηγεῖται τὸ βουλεύεσθαι, ὡς ἐπὶ πάντων τῶν κτισμάτων. Εἰ δὲ ὁ Λόγος τῶν μὲν κτισμάτων ἐστὶ δημιουργὸς, αὐ τὸς δὲ συνυπάρχει τῷ Πατρί· πῶς δύναται τοῦ ἀϊδίως ὄντος, ὡς μὴ ὄντος, προηγεῖσθαι τὸ βουλεύεσθαι; Εἰ γὰρ προηγεῖται βουλὴ, πῶς δι' αὐτοῦ τὰ πάντα; Μᾶλλον γὰρ εἷς τῶν πάντων ἐστὶ βουλήσει καὶ αὐτὸς ἀποκυηθεὶς Υἱὸς, ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς Λόγῳ ἀλη θείας γεγόναμεν υἱοί· καὶ λοιπὸν ἡμᾶς ἀνάγκη ζη τεῖν, ὥσπερ εἴρηται, ἄλλον Λόγον, δι' οὗ καὶ οὗτος γέγονε, καὶ ἀπεκυήθη μετὰ πάντων, ὧν ἠθέλησεν ὁ Θεός. Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐστιν ἕτερος τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ἔστω καὶ οὗτος Λόγῳ γεγονώς· εἰ δὲ μὴ ἔστιν ἄλλος (οὐκ ἔστι γάρ), ἀλλὰ πάντα δι' αὐτοῦ γέγονεν, ἅπερ ὁ Πα τὴρ βεβούληται· πῶς οὐ δείκνυται τούτων πο λυκέφαλος πανουργία; Ὅτι καταισχυνθέντες ἐπὶ τῷ λέγειν ποίημα καὶ κτίσμα, καὶ, Οὐκ ἦν πρὶν γεννηθῇ ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Λόγος, ἄλλως πάλιν κτίσμα λέγουσιν αὐ τὸν εἶναι, βούλησιν προβαλλόμενοι καὶ λέγοντες· Εἰ μὴ βουλήσει γέγονεν, οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκῃ καὶ μὴ θέλων ἔσχεν ὁ Θεὸς Υἱόν. Καὶ τίς ὁ τὴν ἀνάγκην ἐπιβαλὼν αὐτῷ, πονηρότατοι, καὶ πάντα πρὸς τὴν αἵρεσιν ἑαυτῶν ἕλκοντες; Τὸ μὲν γὰρ ἀντικείμενον τῇ βουλή σει ἑωράκασι· τὸ δὲ μεῖζον καὶ ὑπερκείμενον οὐκ ἐθεώρησαν. Ὥσπερ γὰρ ἀντίκειται τῇ βουλήσει τὸ παρὰ γνώμην, οὕτως ὑπέρκειται καὶ προηγεῖται τοῦ βουλεύεσθαι τὸ κατὰ φύσιν. Οἰκίαν μὲν οὖν τις βουλευόμενος κατασκευάζει, υἱὸν δὲ γεννᾷ κατὰ φύ σιν· καὶ τὸ μὲν βουλήσει κατασκευαζόμενον ἤρξατο γίνεσθαι, καὶ ἔξωθέν ἐστι τοῦ ποιοῦντος· ὁ δὲ υἱὸς ἴδιόν ἐστι τῆς οὐσίας τοῦ πατρὸς γέννημα, καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν ἔξωθεν αὐτοῦ· διὸ οὐδὲ βουλεύεται περὶ αὐτοῦ, ἵνα μὴ καὶ περὶ ἑαυτοῦ δοκῇ βουλεύεσθαι. Ὅσῳ οὖν τοῦ κτίσματος ὁ υἱὸς ὑπέρκειται, τοσούτῳ καὶ τῆς βουλήσεως τὸ κατὰ φύσιν· καὶ ἔδει αὐτοὺς, ἀκούοντας, οὐ βουλήσει λογίζεσθαι τὸ κατὰ φύσιν. Οἱ δὲ ἐπιλαθόμενοι, ὅτι περὶ Υἱοῦ Θεοῦ ἀκούουσι, τολμῶσιν ἀνθρωπίνας ἀντιθέσεις λέγειν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ, ἀνάγκην καὶ παρὰ γνώμην, ἵνα τὸ εἶναι Υἱὸν ἀληθινὸν ἀρνήσωνται τοῦ Θεοῦ· ἐπεὶ εἰπάτωσαν ἡμῖν αὐτοί· Τὸ ἀγαθὸν εἶναι καὶ οἰκτίρμονα τὸν Θεὸν ἐκ βουλήσεως πρόσεστιν αὐτῷ, ἢ οὐ βουλήσει; Εἰ μὲν οὖν ἐκ βουλήσεως, σκοπεῖν δεῖ, ὅτι ἤρξατο μὲν εἶναι ἀγαθὸς, καὶ τὸ μὴ εἶναι δὲ αὐτὸν ἀγαθὸν ἐνδεχόμενόν ἐστι. Τὸ γὰρ βουλεύεσθαι καὶ προαιρεῖ σθαι εἰς ἑκάτερα τὴν ῥοπὴν ἔχει, καὶ λογικῆς φύσεώς ἐστι τοῦτο πάθος. Εἰ δὲ διὰ τὸ ἐκ τούτων ἄτοπον οὐκ ἐκ βουλήσεως ἀγαθὸς καὶ οἰκτίρμων ἐστὶν, ἀκου σάτωσαν ἅπερ εἰρήκασιν αὐτοί· οὐκοῦν ἀνάγκῃ καὶ μὴ θέλων ἐστὶν ἀγαθός. Καὶ τίς ὁ τὴν ἀνάγκην ἐπι βαλὼν αὐτῷ; Εἰ δὲ ἄτοπόν ἐστι λέγειν ἐπὶ Θεοῦ ἀνάγκην, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο φύσει ἀγαθός ἐστιν· εἴη ἂν πολλῷ μᾶλλον καὶ ἀληθέστερον τοῦ Υἱοῦ φύσει καὶ οὐκ ἐκ βουλήσεως Πατήρ. Εἰπάτωσαν δὲ πάλιν ἡμῖν καὶ τοῦτο (πρὸς γὰρ τὴν ἀναισχυντίαν αὐτῶν ἐρώτησιν αὐτοῖς ἐπαγα γεῖν ἔτι βούλομαι, τολμηροτέραν μὲν, βλέπουσαν δὲ ὅμως εἰς εὐσέβειαν· ἱλάσθητι, ∆έσποτα)· Ὁ Πα τὴρ αὐτὸς, βουλευσάμενος πρότερον, εἶτα θελήσας, οὕτως ὑπάρχει, ἢ καὶ πρὸ τοῦ βουλεύσασθαι; Χρὴ γὰρ, καὶ περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τοιαῦτα τολμῶντας αὐτοὺς, τοιαῦτα καὶ ἀκούειν, ἵνα γνῶσιν, ὅτι ἡ τοι αύτη αὐτῶν προπέτεια καὶ εἰς αὐτὸν τὸν Πατέρα φθάνει. Ἐὰν μὲν οὖν εἴπωσιν, ἅπαξ βουλευσάμενοι περὶ βουλήσεως, ὅτι καὶ αὐτὸς ἐκ βουλήσεως· τί οὖν ἦν πρὸ τοῦ βουλεύσασθαι, ἢ τί πλέον ἔσχεν, ὡς ὑμεῖς λέγετε, μετὰ τὸ βουλεύσασθαι; Εἰ δὲ ἄτοπος καὶ ἀσύστατός ἐστιν ἡ τοιαύτη ἐρώτησις, καὶ οὐ θέ μις ὅλως τοιαῦτα λέγειν (ἀρκεῖ γὰρ καὶ μόνον ἀκού οντας ἡμᾶς περὶ Θεοῦ εἰδέναι καὶ νοεῖν, ὅτι αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ ὤν), πῶς οὐκ ἄλογον ἂν εἴη περὶ τοῦ Λόγου τοῦ Θεοῦ τοιαῦτα ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, καὶ βούλησιν καὶ θέλησιν προβάλλεσθαι; Ἀρκεῖ γὰρ καὶ μόνον ἀκούοντας ἡμᾶς καὶ περὶ τοῦ Λόγου εἰδέναι καὶ νοεῖν, ὅτι ὁ μὴ ἐκ βουλήσεως ὑπάρχων Θεὸς οὐ βουλή σει, ἀλλὰ φύσει τὸν ἴδιον ἔχει Λόγον. Πῶς δὲ οὐχ ὑπερβάλλει πᾶσαν μανίαν, τὸ καὶ μόνον ἐνθυμεῖσθαι, ὅτι αὐτὸς ὁ Θεὸς βουλεύεται καὶ σκέπτεται, καὶ προαιρεῖται, καὶ θέλειν ἑαυτὸν προτρέπεται, ἵνα μὴ ἄλογος καὶ ἄσοφος ᾖ, ἀλλὰ Λόγον καὶ Σοφίαν ἔχῃ; Περὶ ἑαυτοῦ γὰρ δοκεῖ σκέπτεσθαι ὁ περὶ τοῦ ἰδίου τῆς οὐσίας ἑαυτοῦ βουλευόμενος. Πολλῆς τοίνυν δυσφημίας οὔσης ἐν τῇ τοιαύτῃ φρονήσει, εὐσεβῶς ἂν λεχθείη, ὅτι τὸ μὲν γενητὰ εὐδοκίᾳ καὶ βουλήσει γέ γονεν, ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς οὐ θελήματός ἐστι δημιούργημα ἐπιγεγονὼς, καθάπερ ἡ κτίσις, ἀλλὰ φύσει τῆς οὐσίας ἴδιον γέννημα. Καὶ γὰρ ἴδιος ὢν Λόγος τοῦ Πα τρὸς, οὐκ ἐᾷ πρὸ ἑαυτοῦ λογίσασθαί τινα βού λησιν, αὐτὸς ὢν βουλὴ ζῶσα τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ δύ ναμις, καὶ δημιουργὸς τῶν δοκούντων τῷ Πατρί. Καὶ ταῦτα αὐτὸς ἐν ταῖς Παροιμίαις περὶ ἑαυτοῦ φησιν· Ἐμὴ βουλὴ καὶ ἀσφάλεια, ἐμὴ φρόνησις, ἐμὴ δὲ ἰσχύς. Ὡς γὰρ αὐτὸς ὢν ἡ φρόνησις, ἐν ᾗ τοὺς οὐ ρανοὺς ἡτοίμασε, καὶ αὐτὸς ὢν ἰσχὺς καὶ δύνα μις· Χριστὸς γὰρ Θεοῦ δύναμις καὶ Θεοῦ σοφία· νῦν παρακλίνων εἶπεν, Ἐμὴ φρόνησις, καὶ ἐμὴ ἰσχύς· οὕτω λέγων, Ἐμὴ βουλὴ, αὐτὸς ἂν εἴη τοῦ Πατρὸς ἡ ζῶσα βουλὴ, καθὼς καὶ παρὰ τοῦ προφήτου μεμαθήκαμεν, ὅτι αὐτὸς τῆς μεγάλης βουλῆς Ἄγγελος γί νεται, καὶ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς αὐτὸς ἐκλήθη. Χρὴ γὰρ οὕτω διελέγχειν αὐτοὺς, ἀνθρώπινα περὶ τοῦ Θεοῦ διανοουμένους. Οὐκοῦν εἰ τὰ ποιήματα βουλήσει καὶ εὐδοκίᾳ ὑπέστη, καὶ ἡ κτίσις πᾶσα θελήματι γέγονεν· ὅ τε Παῦλος διὰ θελήματος Θεοῦ ἀπόστολος ἐκλήθη, καὶ ἡ κλῆσις ἡμῶν εὐδοκίᾳ καὶ θελήματι γέγονε, πάντα δὲ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου γέγονεν· ἐκτός ἐστιν οὗτος τῶν βουλήσει γεγονότων, καὶ μᾶλλον αὐτός ἐστιν ἡ ζῶσα βουλὴ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ἐν ᾗ ταῦτα πάντα γέγονεν· ἐν ᾗ καὶ ὁ ἅγιος ∆αβὶδ εὐχαριστῶν ἔλεγεν ἐν τῷ ἑβδομηκοστῷ δευτέρῳ ψαλμῷ· Ἐκράτησας τῆς χειρὸς τῆς δεξιᾶς μου· καὶ ἐν τῇ βουλῇ σου ὡδή γησάς με. Πῶς οὖν δύναται βουλὴ καὶ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρὸς ὑπάρχων ὁ Λόγος γίνεσθαι καὶ αὐτὸς θελήματι καὶ βουλήσει, ὡς ἕκαστος, εἰ μὴ, καθὰ προεῖπον, μανέντες πάλιν εἴπωσιν αὐτὸν δι' ἑαυτοῦ γεγονέναι, ἢ δι' ἑτέρου τινός; Τίς οὖν ἐστι, δι' οὗ γέ γονε; Πλασάσθωσαν ἕτερον Λόγον, καὶ τὰ Οὐαλεντίνου ζηλώσαντες, Χριστὸν ἕτερον ὀνομασάτωσαν· οὐ γὰρ γέγραπται. Ἀλλὰ κἂν πλάσωνται, πάντως κἀκεῖνος διά τινος γίνεται· καὶ λοιπὸν οὕτως ἐπιλογιζομένων ἡμῶν, καὶ ἀνακρινόντων τὴν ἀκολουθίαν, εὑρί σκεται τῶν ἀθέων ἡ πολυκέφαλος αἵρεσις εἰς πολυ θεότητα πίπτουσα καὶ ἄμετρον μανίαν, ἐν ᾗ κτίσμα καὶ ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων θέλοντες εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν, ἑτέρως τὰ αὐτὰ σημαίνουσι, βούλησιν καὶ θέλησιν προβαλλόμενοι, ἃ μάλιστα ἐπὶ τῶν γενητῶν καὶ κτιστῶν ταῦτα εὐλόγως ἂν λέγοιτο. Πῶς οὖν οὐκ ἀσεβὲς τὰ τῶν γενητῶν ἐπὶ τὸν ∆ημιουργὸν ἀναφέρειν; Ἢ πῶς οὐ βλάσφημον λέγειν βούλησιν πρὸ τοῦ Λόγου εἶναι ἐν τῷ Πατρί; Εἰ γὰρ προηγεῖται βούλησις ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, οὐκ ἀληθεύει λέγων ὁ Υἱὸς, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρί· ἢ εἰ καὶ αὐτὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρί ἐστιν, ἀλλὰ δεύτερος λογισθήσεται, καὶ οὐκ ἔπρεπε λέγειν αὐτὸν, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, οὔσης βουλήσεως πρὸ αὐτοῦ, ἐν ᾗ τὰ πάντα γέγονε, καὶ αὐτὸς ὑπέστη καθ' ὑμᾶς. Κἂν γὰρ τῇ δόξῃ διαφέρῃ, ἀλλ' οὐδὲν ἧττον εἷς ἐστι τῶν ἐκ βουλήσεως γινομένων. Ὡς δὲ ἐν τοῖς ἔμπρο σθεν εἰρήκαμεν, εἰ οὕτως ἐστὶ, πῶς ὁ μὲν Κύριος, τὰ δὲ δοῦλα; Πάντων δὲ Κύριος τυγχάνει οὗτος, ὅτι τῇ τοῦ Πατρὸς κυριότητι ἥνωται· καὶ πάντως ἡ κτίσις δούλη, ἐπεὶ ἐκτὸς τῆς τοῦ Πατρὸς ἑνότητός ἐστι, καὶ οὐκ οὖσά ποτε γέγονε. Ἔδει δὲ αὐτοὺς, λέγοντας βουλήσει τὸν Υἱὸν, εἰπεῖν, ὅτι καὶ φρονήσει γέγονε· ταὐτὸν γὰρ ἡγοῦμαι φρόνησιν καὶ βούλησιν εἶναι. Ὃ γὰρ βουλεύεταί τις, τοῦτο πάντως καὶ φρονεῖ· καὶ ὃ φρονεῖ, τοῦτο καὶ βουλεύεται. Αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Σωτὴρ ὡς ἀδελφὰ ταῦτα τῇ ἀναλογίᾳ συνῆψεν ἅμα λέγων· Ἐμὴ βουλὴ καὶ ἀσφάλεια, ἐμὴ φρόνησις, ἐμὴ δὲ ἰσχύς. Ὡς γὰρ ἰσχὺς καὶ ἀσφάλεια ταὐτόν ἐστιν, ἡ αὐτὴ γὰρ δύναμίς ἐστιν· οὕτω ταὐτόν ἐστιν εἰπεῖν τὴν φρόνη σιν καὶ τὴν βουλὴν εἶναι, ἅπερ ἐστὶν ὁ Κύριος. Ἀλλ' οἱ ἀσεβεῖς οὐ θέλουσι μὲν Λόγον καὶ βουλὴν ζῶσαν εἶναι τὸν Υἱόν· περὶ δὲ τὸν Θεὸν φρόνησιν καὶ βουλὴν καὶ σοφίαν ὡς ἕξιν συμβαίνουσαν καὶ ἀπο συμβαίνουσαν ἀνθρωπίνως γίνεσθαι μυθολογοῦσι, καὶ πάντα κινοῦσι, καὶ τὴν Οὐαλεντίνου ἔννοιαν καὶ θέλησιν προβάλλονται, ἵνα μόνον διαστήσωσι τὸν Υἱὸν ἀπὸ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ μὴ εἴπωσιν ἴδιον αὐτὸν τοῦ Πα τρὸς εἶναι Λόγον, ἀλλὰ κτίσμα. Ἐκεῖνοι μὲν οὖν ἀκουέτωσαν, ὡς Σίμων ὁ Μάγος ἤκουσεν· Ἡ ἀσέβεια Οὐαλεντίνου σὺν ὑμῖν εἴη εἰς ἀπώλειαν! ἕκαστος δὲ Σολομῶνι μᾶλλον πειθέσθω λέγοντι αὐτὸν εἶναι σοφίαν καὶ φρόνησιν τὸν Λόγον. Φησὶ γάρ· Ὁ Θεὸς τῇ σοφίᾳ ἐθεμελίωσε τὴν γῆν· ἡτοίμασε δὲ οὐρανοὺς ἐν φρονήσει· ὡς δὲ ὧδε ἐν φρονήσει, οὕτως ἐν Ψαλμοῖς· Τῷ Λόγῳ Κυρίου οἱ οὐρανοὶ ἐστερεώθησαν. Ὡς δὲ τῷ Λόγῳ οἱ οὐρανοὶ, οὕτω πάντα, ὅσα ἠθέλησεν, ἐποίησε· καὶ ὡς ὁ Ἀπό στολος γράφει Θεσσαλονικεῦσι· Τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ ἐστιν. Ὁ ἄρα τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς, αὐτός ἐστιν ὁ Λόγος καὶ ἡ σοφία, αὐτὸς ἡ φρόνησις καὶ ἡ ζῶσα βουλή· καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ τὸ θέλημα τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν· αὐτὸς ἀλήθεια, καὶ φῶς, καὶ δύναμις τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν. Εἰ δὲ ἡ βούλησις τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἡ σοφία ἐστὶ καὶ ἡ φρόνησις, ὁ δὲ Υἱός ἐστιν ἡ σοφία· ὁ ἄρα λέ γων βουλήσει τὸν Υἱὸν ἴσον λέγει τῷ τὴν Σοφίαν ἐν Σοφίᾳ γεγονέναι, καὶ τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν Υἱῷ πεποιῆσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦ Λόγου τὸν Λόγον ἐκτίσθαι. Τοῦτο δὲ καὶ τῷ Θεῷ μάχεται, καὶ ταῖς παρ' αὐτοῦ Γραφαῖς ἐναν τιοῦται· καὶ γὰρ καὶ ὁ Ἀπόστολος οὐ βουλήσεως, ἀλλὰ αὐτῆς τῆς πατρικῆς οὐσίας ἴδιον ἀπαύγα σμα καὶ χαρακτῆρα τὸν Υἱὸν κηρύττει, λέγων· Ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑπο στάσεως αὐτοῦ. Εἰ δὲ, ὡς προειρήκαμεν, ἐκ βουλήσεως οὐκ ἔστιν ἡ πατρικὴ οὐσία καὶ ὑπόστασις, εὔδηλον, ὡς οὔτε τὸ ἴδιον τῆς πατρικῆς ὑποστάσεως ἐκ βουλήσεως ἂν εἴη. Ὁποία γὰρ ᾖ καὶ ὡς ἐὰν ᾖ ἡ μακα ρία ἐκείνη ὑπόστασις, τοιοῦτον καὶ οὕτως εἶναι καὶ τὸ ἴδιον ἐξ αὐτῆς γέννημα δεῖ. Καὶ αὐτὸς γοῦν ὁ Πατὴρ οὐκ εἶπεν· Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ βουλήσει μου γεγονὼς Υἱὸς, οὐδὲ, Ὃν κατ' εὐδοκίαν ἔσχον Υἱόν· ἀλλ' ἁπλῶς, Ὁ Υἱός μου, καὶ μᾶλλον, Ἐν ᾧ ηὐδόκησα· δεικνὺς ἐκ τούτων, ὅτι, Φύσει μὲν οὗτός ἐστιν Υἱὸς, ἐν αὐτῷ δὲ τῶν ἐμοὶ δοκούντων ἡ βούλησις ἀπόκειται. Ἆρ' οὖν ἐπεὶ φύσει καὶ μὴ ἐκ βουλήσεώς ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς, ἤδη καὶ ἀθέλητός ἐστι τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ μὴ βου λομένου τοῦ Πατρός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱός; Οὐμενοῦν· ἀλλὰ καὶ θελόμενός ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, καὶ, ὡς αὐτός φησιν, Ὁ Πατὴρ φιλεῖ τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ πάντα δείκνυσιν αὐτῷ. Ὡς γὰρ τὸ εἶναι ἀγαθὸς οὐκ ἐκ βουλήσεως μὲν ἤρξατο, οὐ μὴν ἀβουλήτως καὶ ἀθελή τως ἐστὶν ἀγαθός· ὃ γάρ ἐστι, τοῦτο καὶ θελητόν ἐστιν αὐτῷ· οὕτω καὶ τὸ εἶναι τὸν Υἱὸν, εἰ καὶ μὴ ἐκ βουλή σεως ἤρξατο, ἀλλ' οὐκ ἀθέλητον, οὐδὲ παρὰ γνώμην ἐστὶν αὐτῷ. Ὥσπερ γὰρ τῆς ἰδίας ὑποστάσεώς ἐστι θελητὴς, οὕτω καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς, ἴδιος ὢν αὐτοῦ τῆς οὐσίας, οὐκ ἀθέλητός ἐστιν αὐτῷ. Θελέσθω καὶ φιλείσθω τοί νυν ὁ Υἱὸς παρὰ τοῦ Πατρός· καὶ οὕτω τὸ θέλειν καὶ τὸ μὴ ἀβούλητον τοῦ Θεοῦ τις εὐσεβῶς λογιζέσθω. Καὶ γὰρ ὁ Υἱὸς τῇ θελήσει ᾗ θέλεται παρὰ τοῦ Πατρὸς, ταύτῃ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀγαπᾷ, καὶ θέλει, καὶ τιμᾷ τὸν Πατέρα· καὶ ἕν ἐστι θέλημα τὸ ἐκ Πατρὸς ἐν Υἱῷ, ὡς καὶ ἐκ τούτου θεωρεῖσθαι τὸν Υἱὸν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ τὸν Πατέρα ἐν τῷ Υἱῷ. Μὴ μέντοι κατὰ Οὐαλεντῖνον προηγουμένην τις βούλησιν ἐπεισαγέτω· μηδὲ μέσον τις ἑαυτὸν ὠθείτω τοῦ μόνου Πα τρὸς πρὸς τὸν μόνον Λόγον, προφάσει τοῦ βουλεύε σθαι. Μαίνοιτο γὰρ ἄν τις μεταξὺ τιθεὶς Πατρὸς καὶ Υἱοῦ βούλησιν καὶ σκέψιν. Καὶ γὰρ ἕτερόν ἐστι λέγειν, Βουλήσει γέγονεν, ἕτερον δὲ, ὅτι Ἴδιον ὄντα φύσει τὸν Υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἀγαπᾷ καὶ θέλει αὐτόν. Τὸ μὲν γὰρ λέγειν, Ἐκ βουλήσεως γέγονε, πρῶτον μὲν τὸ μὴ εἶναί ποτε τοῦτον σημαίνει· ἔπειτα δὲ, καὶ τὴν ἐπ' ἄμφω ῥοπὴν ἔχει, καθάπερ εἴρηται· ὥστε δύνα σθαί τινα νοεῖν, ὅτι ἠδύνατο καὶ μὴ βούλεσθαι τὸν Υἱόν. Ἐπὶ Υἱοῦ δὲ λέγειν, Ἠδύνατο καὶ μὴ εἶναι,δυσσεβές ἐστι καὶ φθάνον εἰς τὴν τοῦ Πατρὸς οὐσίαν τὸ τόλμημα· εἴγε τὸ ἴδιον αὐτῆς ἠδύνατο μὴ εἶναι. Ὅμοιον γὰρ ὡς εἰ ἐλέγετο, Ἠδύνατο καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἀγαθὸς ὁ Πατήρ. Ἀλλ' ὥσπερ ἀγαθὸς ἀεὶ καὶ τῇ φύσει, οὕτως ἀεὶ γεννητικὸς τῇ φύσει ὁ Πατήρ· τὸ δὲ λέγειν, Ὁ Πατὴρ θέλει τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ, Ὁ Λόγος θέλει τὸν Πατέρα, οὐ βούλησιν προηγουμένην δείκνυσιν, ἀλλὰ φύσεως γνησιότητα, καὶ οὐσίας ἰδιότητα καὶ ὁμοίωσιν γνωρίζει. Ὡς γὰρ καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ ἀπαυ γάσματος ἄν τις εἴποι καὶ τοῦ φωτὸς, ὅτι τὸ ἀπαύ γασμα οὐκ ἔχει μὲν βούλησιν προηγουμένην ἐν τῷ φωτί· ἔστι δὲ φύσει αὐτοῦ γέννημα θελόμενον παρὰ τοῦ φωτὸς τοῦ καὶ γεννήσαντος αὐτὸ, οὐκ ἐν σκέψει βουλήσεως, ἀλλὰ φύσει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ· οὕτω καὶ ἐπὶ τοῦ Πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ ὀρθῶς ἄν τις εἴποι, ὅτι ὁ Πατὴρ ἀγαπᾷ καὶ θέλει τὸν Υἱὸν, καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ἀγαπᾷ καὶ θέλει τὸν Πατέρα. Οὐκοῦν μὴ λεγέσθω θελήματος δημιούργημα ὁ Υἱὸς, μηδὲ τὰ Οὐαλεντίνου ἐπεισαγέσθω τῇ Ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλὰ βουλὴ ζῶσα, καὶ ἀληθῶς φύσει γέννημα, ὡς τοῦ φωτὸς τὸ ἀπαύγασμα. Οὕτω γὰρ καὶ ὁ μὲν Πατὴρ εἴρηκεν, Ἐξηρεύξατο ἡ καρδία μου Λόγον ἀγαθόν· ὁ δὲ Υἱὸς ἀκολούθως, Ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί. Εἰ δὲ ὁ Λόγος ἐν καρδίᾳ, ποῦ ἡ βούλησις; Καὶ εἰ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, ποῦ ἡ θέλησις; Καὶ εἰ ἡ βούλησις αὐτὸς, πῶς ἐν βουλήσει ἡ βουλή; Ἄτοπον γάρ· ἵνα μὴ καὶ ἐν Λόγῳ ὁ Λόγος, καὶ ὁ Υἱὸς ἐν Υἱῷ, καὶ ἡ Σοφία ἐν Σοφίᾳ γίνηται, καθάπερ πολλάκις εἴρηται. Πάντα γάρ ἐστιν ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ Πατρός· καὶ οὐδὲν ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ πρὸ τοῦ Λόγου· ἀλλ' ἐν τῷ Λόγῳ καὶ ἡ βούλησις· καὶ δι' αὐτοῦ τὰ τοῦ βουλήματος εἰς ἔργον τελειοῦται, ὡς ἔδειξαν αἱ θεῖαι Γραφαί. Ἐβουλόμην δὲ τοὺς ἀσεβεῖς οὕτως εἰς ἀλογίαν πεπτωκότας, καὶ περὶ βουλήσεως σκεπτομέ νους, νῦν ἐρωτῆσαι μηκέτι τὰς τικτούσας αὐτῶν γυ ναῖκας, ἃς οὗτοι πρότερον ἠρώτων λέγοντες, Εἰ εἶχες υἱὸν, πρὶν γεννήσῃς; ἀλλὰ τοὺς πατέρας, καὶ εἰπεῖν αὐτοῖς· Πότερον βουλευόμενοι γίνεσθε πατέρες, ἢ κατὰ φύσιν καὶ τῆς ὑμῶν βουλήσεως; Ἢ τῆς φύ σεως καὶ οὐσίας ὑμῶν ἐστιν ὅμοια τὰ τέκνα; ἵνα κἂν παρὰ τῶν γονέων ἐντραπῶσι, παρ' ὧν τὸ λῆμμα τῆς γενέσεως ἀπῄτησαν, καὶ παρ' ὧν ἤλπισαν ἔχειν τὴν γνῶσιν. Ἀποκριθήσονται γὰρ αὐτοῖς, ὅτι Ἃ γεννῶμεν, οὐ τοῦ θελήματος, ἀλλ' ἡμῶν ἐστιν ὅμοια οὐδὲ προβουλευσάμενοι γινόμεθα γονεῖς, ἀλλὰ τῆς φύσεως ἴδιόν ἐστι τὸ γεννᾷν· ἐπεὶ καὶ ἡμεῖς τῶν τε κόντων ἐσμὲν εἰκόνες. Ἢ τοίνυν καταγινωσκέ τωσαν ἑαυτῶν, καὶ παυέσθωσαν πυνθανόμενοι γυναι κῶν περὶ τοῦ Υἱοῦ τοῦ Θεοῦ, ἢ μανθανέτωσαν παρ' αὐτῶν, ὅτι οὐ βουλήσει γεννᾶται ὁ υἱὸς, ἀλλὰ φύσει καὶ ἀληθείᾳ. Πρέπων δὲ καὶ ἁρμόζων τούτοις ὁ ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ἔλεγχος, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ἀνθρώπινα περὶ τῆς θεότητος διαλογίζονται οἱ κακόφρονες. Τί τοίνυν ἔτι μαίνονται οἱ Χριστομάχοι; Καὶ τοῦτο γὰρ αὐ τῶν ὥσπερ οὖν καὶ τὰ ἄλλα προβλήματα δέδεικται καὶ ἠλέγχθη φαντασία καὶ μυθοπλαστία μόνον ὄντα· καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ὀφείλουσι, κἂν ὀψέ ποτε θεωρή σαντες εἰς ὅσον ἀφροσύνης πεπτώκασι κρημνὸν, ἀνα δῦναι καὶ φύγειν ἀπὸ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, νουθετούμενοι παρ' ἡμῶν. Φιλάνθρωπος γὰρ ἡ ἀλήθεια κράζουσα διαπαντός· Εἰ ἐμοὶ μὴ πιστεύετε διὰ τὴν τοῦ σώματος περιβολὴν, κἂν τοῖς ἔργοις πιστεύσατε· ἵνα γνῶτε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ Πατρὶ, καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί· καὶ, Ἐγὼ καὶ ὁ Πατὴρ ἕν ἐσμεν· καὶ, Ὁ ἑωρακὼς ἐμὲ, ἑώρακε τὸν Πατέρα. Ἀλλ' ὁ μὲν Κύριος συνήθως φιλανθρωπεύεται, καὶ θέλει πάντας ἀνορθοῦσθαι τοὺς κατεῤῥαγμένους, ὡς ἡ αἴνεσις λέγει τοῦ ∆αβίδ· οἱ δὲ, ἀσεβεῖς οὐ θέλοντες ἀκούειν Κυριακῆς φωνῆς, οὐδὲ φέροντες ὁρᾷν τὸν Κύριον ὑπὸ πάντων ὁμολογούμενον Θεὸν, καὶ Θεοῦ Υἱὸν, περιέρχονται οἱ ἄθλιοι, ὡς οἱ κάνθαροι, μετὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἑαυτῶν τοῦ διαβόλου προφάσεις εἰς ἀσέβειαν ζητοῦντες. Ποίας οὖν ἄρα μετὰ ταῦτα πάλιν, ἢ πόθεν εὑρεῖν δυνήσονται, εἰ μὴ ἄρα παρὰ μὲν Ἰουδαίων καὶ τοῦ Καϊάφα δανείσωνται τὰς δυσφημίας, παρ' Ἑλλήνων δὲ λάβωσι τὴν ἀθεότητα; αἱ γὰρ θεῖαι Γραφαὶ τούτοις ἐκλείσθησαν, καὶ πανταχόθεν ἐξ αὐτῶν ἠλέγχθησαν ἄφρονες καὶ Χριστομάχοι.