Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| 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.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
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). But3203
| 3203 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 depraved3204
| 3204 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, hostile3205
| 3205 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
God3206
, as hydras3207
,
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 father3208
had himself
been abashed and gone back, again as from their perverse heart they
mutter forth other expedients, sometimes in whispers, sometimes with
the drone3209
| 3209 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 aright3210
| 3210 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 intention3211
| 3211 διανοίας interpretation, §26, n. 9. | prevailing over that somewhat simple use of
words3212
| 3212 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 heretics3213
| 3213 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 deceit3214
,’ even though they but make signs3215
, 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 simple3216
, and to keep in mind their peculiar heresy.
For whence3217
| 3217 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 God3218
.’
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
‘precedent3219
| 3219 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
forth3220
| 3220 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 be3221
| 3221 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 places3222
.’ 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 advocate3223
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 shewn3224
, 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 God3225
;’ 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 will3226
.’ 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 before3227
, 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 truth3228
.’ 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 Apostle3229
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-headed3230
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 counselling3231
| 3231 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 will3232
| 3232 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 Lord3233
| 3233 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 after3234
| 3234 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
account3235
| 3235 λογίσασθαί
τινα
βούλησιν, as §66 (Latin version inexact). | of will as before Himself, since He is
Himself the Father’s Living Counsel3236
| 3236 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 strength3237
.’ 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’3238
), 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
Living3239
| 3239 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 Counsel3240
,’ and was
called the good pleasure of the Father; for thus we must refute them,
using human illustrations3241
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 Counsel3242
.’ 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 other3243
| 3243 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 Valentinus3244
; 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-headed3245
| 3245 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 Atheists3246
is discovered to issue in polytheism3247
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 servants3248
? 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 strength3249
.’ 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 God3250
| 3250 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 habit3251
| 3251 ἕξιν. vid. Or. ii.
38, n. 6; iv. 2, n. 7. | , coming and going3252
| 3252 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 you3253
;’ 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 Jesus3254
.’ 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 Word3255
| 3255 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 will3256
, but of His Essence3257
| 3257 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 Subsistence3258
.’ 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 things3259
.’ 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 of3260
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 generative3261
| 3261 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 Me3262
.’ 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 repeatedly3263
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 reason3264
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
him3265
?’ 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 essence3266
| 3266 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 proposition3267
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 pleasure3268
,
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 themselves3269
| 3269 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 instances3270
,
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 Father3271
.”’ But
the Lord according to His wont is loving to man, and would fain
‘help them that are fallen,’ as the praise of David3272
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.E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
