He said: As for the claim advanced by some (1) of Arius’s followers—that the Father wills a thing while the Son brings it into existence, so that the will is the Father’s and the actual creation the Son’s—this, too, collapses, for (2) in their view the Son is a created being. The result is that the creature’s share in the act of creation surpasses the Creator’s share: the Son both wills and acts, whereas the Father wills but does not act, giving the former the greater portion in the deed. On that premise, the Son’s performance of what he wills would stand on the same footing as any agent among created beings with respect to what the Creator demands of him, and his status would match theirs in matters of goodness (3) and free choice. If he were compelled, he would have no credit for the act; but if he were free to choose, then it would be possible for him to be obeyed and possible for him to be disobeyed, possible for him to be rewarded and possible for him to be punished—and that is an even more repugnant assertion.

He continued his rebuttal, saying: If the Creator fashioned His creation only by means of a created being—and a created being (4) is undeniably other than the Creator—then you are claiming that the Creator acts through another. Yet anyone who acts through another depends on an instrument to complete his act, for the deed cannot be perfected without it; and whoever needs another is deficient, whereas the Creator is far above all such shortcomings (5).

He said: When the Patriarch of Alexandria had thus demolished (6) the arguments of those opponents and everyone present saw the falsity of their position, they became confounded (7) and ashamed. They then leapt upon the Patriarch of Alexandria and beat him until he was on the verge of death, but his sister’s son rescued him from their hands