[ Boule, kata boulesin ]

 ONE of the arguments, on which the Arians laid most stress in controversy, was the received doctrine, as it may be considered, that our Lord s gennesis was [ kata to boulema ] of the Father. Athanasius says that the doctrine is not only heretical in its application, but in its source, though still not necessarily heretical, viewed in itself. The phrase, he says, is from the heretics, and the words of heretics are suspicious. Orat. iii. § 59, supr. vol i. p. 192; and in corroboration he might allege various heterodox writers. E.g. of these, Tatian had said [ thelemati propedai ho logos ]. 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. [ ton pro aionon eudokiai tou patros gennethenta ]. vii. 41. Also Pseudo-Clem. Genuit Deus voluntate præcedente. Recognit. iii. 10. And Eusebius, [ kata gnomen kai proairesin bouletheis ho theos ] and [ ek tes tou patros boules kai dunameos ]. Dem. iv. 3. Arius, course, [ thelemati kai boulei hypeste ], ap. Theod. Hist. i. 4, p. 750, and supr. vol. i. p. 84, Arius s Creed.

 This is true, but far higher authorities can be cited in favour of the phrase, so that Athan. feels it necessary to guard and soften his adverse judgment upon it. Hence he says, If any orthodox believer were to use these words in simplicity, there would be no cause to be suspicious of them, the orthodox intention prevailing over that somewhat simple use of words. Orat. iii. § 59 (as supra). And, Had these expositions of theirs proceeded from the great confessor Hosius, Maximinus, Philogonius, Eustathius, Julius, etc. etc. Ep. Æg. 8. But, after all, his admissions in favour of the phrase do not go far enough, as the following specimens of the use of it will show:

 S. Ignatius speaks of our Lord as Son of God according to the will ([ thelema ]) and power of God. ad. Smyrn. 1. S. Justin as God and Son according to His will, [ boulen ], Tryph. 127; and begotten from the Father at His will, [ thelesei ], ibid. 61; and he says, [ dunamei kai boulei autou ], ibid. 128. S. Clement, issuing from the Father s will itself quicker than light. Gent. 10 fin. S. Hippolytus, Whom God the Father, having willed, [ bouletheis ], begat as He willed, [ hos ethelesen ]. contr. Noet. 16. Origen, [ ek thelematos ]. ap. Justin ad Menn. (in Concil. Const. ii. p. 274, Hard.) vid. also cum filius charitatis etiam voluntatis. Periarch. iv. 28.

 But what is more to the purpose still, Athan. uses the phrase himself, and thereby necessarily sanctions the doctrine which it represents, in one passage in his Discourses, viz. in Orat. iii. § 31. Our Lord was ever God, he says, and hallowed those to whom He came, arranging all things [ kata to boulema tou patros ]. And similarly he says, Men came into being through the Word, [ hote autos ho pater ethelese ]. Orat. i. § 63.

 Now let us consider what the argument was which the Arians founded on this phrase, and how it was to be refuted.

 They threw it into the form of a dilemma thus: Was our Lord s gennesis with or without the Father s will? If with, then He who willed the Son s existence, could have not willed it, or could unwill it now; if without, then it is the blind action of some unknown cause or fate, not the act of the Living Almighty God. If the first of these alternatives was accepted, then followed two conclusions, both contradictory of our Lord s divinity. God is self-existent; but a son depends on his father s will: God is eternal; but a son is posterior to his father s will. For both reasons the Son is not God. If the second alternative is taken, then Necessity is sovereign, and God ceases to be.

 This reasoning, which in the first instance they applied to our Lord s gennesis, they proceeded to apply to all His divine acts also. As He was a being depending for His being, life, and powers on the will of the Supreme God, His Maker, so His great works in creation, conservation, and moral governance, in redemption and sanctification, were all done in obedience to definite commands and fiats of His Almighty Father.

 Such was the Arian argument, yet it was not very difficult to expose its fallacy, while admitting the [ kata to boulema ] to be orthodox; and one can only suppose that Athan. in fact found Catholics perplexed and disturbed by the use the Arians made of it, and felt tender towards those who were not clear-headed. It was scarcely more than another form of the original objection that a son must be posterior to his father, as if the conditions of time existed in eternity. Sooner and later imply succession, and vanish when time is no longer. It is customary to lay down that with Omnipotence to say is to do: He spake and it was done; and if in creation, which is a work in time, to determine and to effect is one act, how much more really is succession as regards His own nature foreign to the Ancient of days, who is at once the Alpha and Omega, the Begining and the End! Then as to the alternative of the Divine acts being subject to necessity or fate, it is obvious to ask whether the Supreme Being is not good and just, omnipotent, and all-blessed, [ kata to boulema ], yet could He change His nature? could He make virtue vice, and vice virtue? If He cannot destroy Himself, and would not be God if He could or would, why should He cease to be God, if He cannot be, nor can will to be, without a Son? Such thoughts are as profane as they are unmeaning; and in the presence of them, Athanasius begs God to pardon him, if his Arian opponents force him to entertain them.

 The gennesis, he says, belongs to the Divine Nature, as the Divine Attributes do, and, as we cannot explain why and how the moral law is what it is, so neither can we understand how Father and Son are what They are. They say, he observes, 'Unless the Son has by the Father s will come into being, it follows that the Father had a Son of necessity and against His good pleasure.' Who is it who imposes necessity on Him? ... What is contrary to will they see; but what is greater and transcends it, has escaped their perception. For, as what is besides purpose is contrary to will, so what is according to nature transcends and precedes counselling ... The Son is not external to the Father, wherefore neither does [the Father] 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 in God transcend the will ... For let them tell us, 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 ... Moreover, the Father Himself, does He exist, first having counselled, then being pleased, to exist, or before counselling? Orat. iii. § 62, 63, supr. vol. i. p. 197.

 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. He says, Whereas they deny what is by nature, do they not blush to place before it what is by will? If they attribute to God the willing about things which are not, why recognise they not what in God lies above the will? Now it is a something that surpasses will that He should exist by nature, and should be Father of His proper Word. Orat. ii. § 2. In like manner S. Epiphanius: He begat Him neither willing, [ thelon ], nor not willing, but in nature, which is above will, [ boulen ]. For He has the nature of the Godhead, neither needing will, nor acting without will. Hær. 69, 26. vid. also Ancor. 51, and Ambros. de Fid. iv. 4. Vid. others, as collected in Petav. Trin. vi. 8, § 14-16.

 It would seem then that the phrase by the Father s will, is only objectionable, as giving rise to interpretations erroneous and dangerous. vid. Decr. § 18. Hence Athan. says, It is all one to say 'at will,' and 'once He was not.' Orat. iii. § 61. But as this needed not be the interpretation of the phrase, and it is well to keep to what has been received, therefore as the earlier Fathers had used it, so did those who came after Arius. Thus Nyssen in the passage in contr. Eun. vii. referred to lower down. And S. Hilary, Nativitatis perfecta natura est, ut qui ex substantiâ Dei natus est, etiam ex consilio ejus et voluntate nascatur. Hilar. Syn. 37. The same Father says, charitate Patris et virtute, in Psalm. xci. 8, and ut voluit qui 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 [ autozoen kai autoagathon ], from the quickening Fountain, the Father s goodness, [ agathotetos ]. contr. Eun. ii. 25. And Cæsarius calls the Son [ agapen patros ]. Quæst. 39. Vid. Ephrem. Syr. adv. Scrut. R. vi. 1, Oxf. Trans. 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 in addition refers to such passages as one just quoted from S. Hilary, speaking of God as not invidus, so as not to communicate Himself, since He was able. Si non potuit, infirmus; si noluit, invidus. August. contr. Maxim. ii. 7.

 Hence, in order to secure the phrase from an heretical tendency, the Fathers adopted two safeguards, both of which are recognised by Athanasius. (1) As regards the relation between the [ boulema ] and the [ gennesis ], they made a distinction between the [ boule proegoumene ] and the [ sundromos ], the precedent and the concomitant will; and (2) as to the relation between the [ boulema ] and creation etc., they took care that the Son Himself should be called the [ boule ] or [ boulema ] of the Father. vid. supr. Mediation, p. 220.

 (1) As to the precedent will, which Athan. notices, Orat. iii. § 60, supr. vol. i. p. 192 etc., it has been mentioned in Recogn. Clem. supr. p. 385. For Ptolemy vid. Epiph. Hær. p. 215. Those Catholics who allowed that our Lord was [ thelesei ], explained it as a [ sundromos thelesis ], and not a [ proegoumene ]; as Cyril. Trin. ii. p. 450. And with the same meaning S. Ambrose, nec voluntas ante Filium nec potestas. de Fid. v. n. 224. And S. Gregory Nyssen, His immediate union, [ amesos sunapheia ], does not exclude the Father s will, [ boulesin ], 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, [ sundromos ] and [ proegoumene ] expressed was this: whether an act of Divine Purpose or Will took place before the gennesis of the Son, or whether both the Will and the gennesis 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, though Novatian s word quando is against this interpretation.

 Two distinct meanings may be attached to by will, (as Dr. Clarke observes, Script. Doct. vol. iv. 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 [ sundromos ], as referred to above; in the latter, when he says that the Father wills His own subsistence, [ theletes esti ], but is not what He is from any will, [ ek bouleseos tinos ], Thes. p. 56; Dr. Clarke would apply to the gennesis the [ ek bouleseos ], 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 by 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 [ ek boules ] is to be ascribed to the [ gennesis ] in the sense which Dr. Clarke wishes, i.e. he grants that it may precede the [ gennesis ], i.e. in order, not in time, viz. 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.

 (2) As to our Lord being the Father s [ boule ], and thereby the concomitant [ boulema ], Athan. declares it, Orat. ii. § 31. iii. § 63. Thus in the first of these places, Since the Word is the Son of God by nature, and is from Him and in Him, so the Father without Him works nothing. God said, Let there be light ... He spoke and it was done ... He spoke, not that some under-worker might hear and learn His will who spoke, and go away and do it, for the Word is the Father s Will.

 [ zosa boule ], supr. Orat. ii. 2. Cyril. in Joan. p. 213. [ zosa dunamis ], Sabell. Greg. 5. [ zosa eikon ], Naz. Orat. 30. 20. [ zosa energeia ], Syn. Antioch. ap. Routh, Reliqu. t. 2, p. 469. [ zosa ischus ], Cyril. in Joan. p. 951. [ zosa sophia ], Origen. contr. Cels. iii. fin. [ zon logos ], Origen. ibid.

 [ agathou patros agathon boulema ]. Clem. Pæd. iii. p. 309. [ sophia, chrestotes, dunamis, thelema pantokratorikon ]. Strom. v. p. 546. Voluntas et potestas patris. Tertull. Orat. 4. Natus ex Patre velut quædam voluntas ejus 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. S. Austin on the other hand, as just now referred to, says, Some divines, to avoid saying that the Only-begotten Word is the Son of the counsel or will of God, have named Him the very Counsel or Will of the Father. But I think it better to speak of Him as Counsel from Counsel, Will from Will, as Substance from Substance, Wisdom from Wisdom. Trin. xv. 20. And so Cæsarius, [ agape ex agapes ]. Qu. 39, supr. vid. for other instances Tertullian s Works, Oxf. Tr. Note I.

 And so Cyril. Thes. p. 54, who uses it expressly, (as has been said above, p. 220,) in contrast to the [ kata boulesin ] of the Arians, though Athan. uses [ kata  to boulema ], also (as in Orat. iii. 31): [ autos tou patros thelema ], says Nyss. contr. Eunom. xii. p. 345. The principle to be observed in the use of such words is this: that we must ever speak of the Father s will, command, etc., and the Son s fulfilment, assent, etc., as if one act.

 Vid. de Decr. 9. contr. Gent. 46. Iren. Hær. iii. 8, n. 3. Origen contr. Cels. ii. 9. Tertull. adv. Prax. 12 fin. Patres Antioch. ap. Routh. t. 2, p. 468. Prosper in Psalm. 148. (149.) Basil. de Sp. S. n. 20. Hilar. Trin. iv. 16. vid. art. Mediation . That the Father speaks and the Son hears, or contrariwise, that the Son speaks and the Father hears, are expressions for the sameness of nature and the agreement of Father and Son. Didym. de Sp. S. 36. The Father s bidding is not other than His Word; so that 'I have not spoken of Myself' He perhaps meant to be equivalent to 'I was not born from Myself.' For if the Word of the Father speaks, He pronounces Himself, for He is the Father s Word, etc. August. de Trin. i. 26. On this mystery, vid. Petav. Trin. vi. 4.

 When God commands others, ... then the hearer answers, ... for each of these receives the Mediator Word which makes known the will of the Father; but when the Word Himself works and creates, there is no questioning and answer, for the Father is in Him, and the Word in the Father; but it suffices to will, and the work is done. Orat. ii. § 31. Such is the Catholic doctrine. For the contrary Arian view, even when it is highest, vid. Euseb. Eccl. Theol. iii. 3; also vid. supra, art. Eusebius, in which passage, p. 164, the Father s [ neumata ] are spoken of, a word common with the Arians. Euseb. ibid. p. 75. de Laud. Const. p. 528. Eunom. Apol. 20 fin. The word is used of the Son s command given to the creation, in Athan. contr. Gent. e.g. 42, 44, etc. S. Cyril. Hier. frequently, as the Arians, uses it of the Father. Catech. x. 5. xi. passim. xv. 25, etc. The difference between the orthodox and Arian views on this point is clearly drawn out by S. Basil. contr. Eunom. ii. 21.