Bibliothek der Kirchenväter

59.

After so many proofs against them, at which even the devil who is their father ¹ had himself been abashed and gone back, again as from their perverse heart they mutter forth other expedients, sometimes in whispers, sometimes with the drone ² 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 aright ³ were to say this in P. 426 simplicity, there would be no cause to be suspicious of the expression, the right intention ⁴ prevailing over that somewhat simple use of words ⁵. But since the phrase is from the heretics ⁶ and the words of heretics are suspicious, and, as it is written, ‘The wicked are deceitful,’ and ‘The words of the wicked are deceit ⁷,’ even though they but make signs ⁸, 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 simple ⁹, and to keep in mind their peculiar heresy. For whence ¹⁰ 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 God ¹¹.’

Or.ii. 73, n. 7. ↩
περιβομβοῦσι .De Decr.14, n. 1; alsode Fug.2, 6. Naz.Orat.27, 2. c. ↩
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. ↩
διανοίας interpretation, §26, n. 9. ↩
Cf.Ep. Æg.8. andsupr.ii. 3. AlsoLetter54 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. ↩
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. alsode Syn.16. ↩
Prov. xii. 5, 6 . LXX. ↩
De Decr.20. ↩
p. 69. n. 8. ↩
And sosupr. de Decr.18, ‘by what Saint have they been taught “at will?”’ That is, no one ever taught it in the sense in whichtheyexplained 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 incontr.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. ↩
Matt. iii. 17 ; Ps. xlv. 1 ; John i. 1 ; Ps. xxxvi. 9 ; Heb. i. 3 ; Phil. ii. 26 ; Col. i. 15 . ↩

Report an error