8 Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Ev. iv. 2, that our Lord is a creature. "This offspring," he says, "did He first produce Himself from Himself as a foundation of those things which should succeed, the perfect handy-work, dhmiourghma, of the Perfect, and the wise structure, arxitektonhma, of the Wise," &c. Accordingly his avowal in the text is but the ordinary Arian evasion of "an offspring, not as the offsprings." E.g. "It is not without peril to say recklessly that the Son is originate out of nothing `similarly to the other things originate.'" Dem Ev. v. 1. vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. 9. iii. 2. And he considers our Lord the only Son by a divine provision similar to that by which there is only one sun in the firmament, as a centre of light and heat. "Such an Only-begotten Son, the excellent artificer of His will and operator, did the supreme God and Father of that operator Himself first of all beget, through Him and in Him giving subsistence to the operative words (ideas or causes) of things which were to be, and casting in Him the seeds of the constitution and governance of the universe;... Therefore the Father being One, it behoved the Son to be one also; but should any one object that He constituted not more, it is fitting for such a one to complain that He constituted not more suns, and moons, and worlds, and ten thousand other things." Dem. Ev. iv. 5 fin. vid. also iv. 6.
9 Eusebius does not say that our Lord is "from the essence of" the Father, but has "an essence from" the Father. This is the Semi-arian doctrine, which, whether confessing the Son from the essence of the Father or not, implied that His essence was not the Father's essence, but a second essence. The same doctrine is found in the Semi-arians of Ancyra, though they seem to have confessed "of the essence." And this is one object of the omoousion, to hinder the confession "of the essence" from implying a second essence, which was not obviated or was even encouraged by the omoiousion. The Council of Ancyra, quoting the text "As the Father hath life in Himself so," &c., says, "since the life which is in the Father means essence, and the life of the Only-begotten which is begotten from the Father means essence, the word `so' implies a likeness of essence to essence." Haer. 73. 10 fin. Hence Eusebius does not scruple to speak of "two essences," and other writers of three essences, contr. Marc. i. 4. p. 25. He calls our Lord "a second essence." Dem. Ev. vi. Praef. Praep. Ev. vii. 12. p. 320, and the Holy Spirit a third essence, ibid. 15. p. 325. This it was that made the Latins so suspicions of three hypostases, because the Semi-arians, as well as they, understood upostasij to mean essence [but this is dubious]. Eusebius in like manner [after Origen] calls our Lord "another God," "a second God." Dem. Ev. v. 4. p. 226. v. fin. "second Lord." ibid. 3 init. 6. fin. "second cause." Dem. Ev. v. Pr...f. vid. also eteron exousa to kat ousian upokeimenon Dem. Ev. v. 1. p. 215. kaq eauton ousiwmenoz ibid. iv. 3. And so eteroj para ton patira. Eccl. Theol. i. 60. p. 90. and zwhn idian exwn. ibid. and zwh kai ufestwj kai tou patroj uparxwn ektoj ibid. Hence Athan. insists so much, as in de Decr., on our Lord not being external to the Father. Once admit that He is in the Father, and we may call the Father, the only God, for He is included. And so again as to the Ingenerate, the term does not exclude the Son, for He is generate in the Ingenerate.
10 This was the point on which the Semi-arians made their principal stand against the "one in essence," though they also objected to it as being of a Sabellion character. E.g. Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 3. p. 148. d.p. 149. a, b. v. 1. pp. 213-215. contr. Marcell. i. 4. p. 20. Eccl. Theol. i. 12. p. 73. in laud. Const. p. 525. de Fide i. ap. Sirmond. tom. i. p. 7. de Fide ii. p. 16, and apparently his de Incorporali. And so the Semi-arians at Ancyra Epiph. Haer. 73. 11. p. 858. a, b. And so Meletius ibid. p. 878 fin. and Cyril Hier. Catech. vii. 5. xi. 18. though of course Catholics would speak ass strongly on this point as their opponents.
11 Here again Eusebius does not say "from the Father's essence," but "not from other essence, but from the Father." According to note 5, supr. be considered the will of God a certain matter or substance. Montfaucon in loc. and Collect. Nov. Praef. p. xxvi. translates without warrant "ex Patris hypostasi et substantiâ." As to the Son's perfect likeness to the Father which he seems here to grant, it has been already shewn, de Decr. 20, note 9, how the admission was evaded. The likeness was but a likeness after its own kind, as a picture is of the original. "Though our Saviour Himself teaches," he says, "that the Father is the `only true God,' still let me not be backward to confess Him also the true God, `as in an image,' and that possessed; so that the addition of `only' may belong to the Father alone as archetype of the image ...As, supposing one king held sway, and his image was carried about into every quarter, no one in his right mind would say that those who held sway were two, but one who was honoured through his image; in like manner," &c. de Eccles. Theol. ii. 23, vid. ibid. 7.
12 Athanasius in like manner, ad Afros. 6. speaks of "testimony of ancient Bishops about 130 years since;" and in de Syn. §43. of "long before" the Council of Antioch, a.d. 269. viz. the Dionysii, &c. vid. note on de Decr. 20.
13 Socrates, who advocates the orthodoxy of Eusebius, leaves out this heterodox paragraph [§§9, 10] altogether. Bull, however, Defens. F. N. iii. 9. n. 3. thinks it an interpolation. Athanasius alludes to the early part of the clause, supr. §4. and de Syn. §13. where he says, that Eusebius implied that the Arians denied even our Lord's existence before His incarnation. As to Constantine, he seems to have been used on these occasions by the court Bishops who were his instructors, and who made him the organ of their own heresy. Upon the first rise of the Arian controversy he addressed a sort of pastoral letter to Alexander and Arius, telling them that they were disputing about a question of words, and recommending them to drop it and live together peaceably. Euseb. vit. C. ii. 69. 72.
14 [Rather `potentially' both here and three lines below.] Theognis, [one] of the Nicene Arians, says the same, according to Philostorgius; viz. "that God even before He begat the Son was a Father, as having the power, dunamij, of begetting." Hist. ii. 15. Though Bull pronounces such doctrine to be heretical, as of course it is, still he considers that it expresses what otherwise stated may be orthodox, viz. the doctrine that our Lord was called the Word from eternity, and the Son upon His descent to create the worlds. And he acutely and ingeniously interprets the Arian formula, "Before His generation He was not," to support this view. Another opportunity will occur of giving an opinion upon this question; meanwhile, the parallel on which the heretical doctrine is supported in the text is answered by many writers, on the ground that Father and Son are words of nature, but Creator, King, Saviour, are external, or what may be called accidental to Him. Thus Athanasius observes, that Father actually implies Son, but Creator only the power to create, as expressing a dunamij; "a maker is before his works, but he who says Father, forthwith in Father implies the existence of the Son." Orat. iii. §6. vid. Cyril too, Dial. ii. p. 459. Pseudo-Basil, contr. Eun. iv. 1. fin. On the other hand Origen argues the reverse way, that since God is eternally a Father, therefore eternally Creator also: "As one cannot he father without a son nor lord without possession, so neither can God be ca ed All-powerful, without subjects of His power;" de Princ. i. 2. n. 10. hence he argued for the eternity of matter.
15 [This excursus supports the view taken above, Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b; the student should supplement Newman's discussion by Zahn Marcellus and Harnack Dogmengesch. as quoted at the head of that section of the Prolegg. The word `Semi-arian' is used in a somewhat inexact sense in this excursus, see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) c, and §8 (2) c.]
173 * The printed text of the Eerdman's reprint is damaged or unreadable here.
1 See de Syn. §§3, 46, 47, and the Excursus in Lightfoot's Ignatius, vol. ii. pp. 90 and foll (first ed.).
2 Cf. note by Newman on de Synodis, §26(5).
3 Cf. Newman's note (8) on de Decr. §II.
4 Or `development' (Gr. probolh) a word with Gnostic and Sabellian antecedents, cf. Newman's note 8 on de Synodis, §16.
5 This word, which became the watchword of the Acacian party, the successors of the Eusebians, marks the relatively early date of this treatise. At a later period Athanasius would not use it without qualification (see Orat. ii. §22, note 4), and later still, rejected the Word entirely as misleading (de Synodis, §53. note 9). Vet see ad Afros. 7, and Orat. ii. 34.
6 o kuriakoj anqrwpoj (see above, introductory remarks). The expression is quoted as used by Ath., apparently from this passage, by Rufinus (Hieron. Opp. ix. p. 131, ed. 1643), Theodoret, Dial. 3, and others. The expression `Dominicus Homo' used by St. Augustine is rendered `Divine Man'in Nicene and P. N. Fathers, Series i. vol. vi. p. 40 b.
7 monoousion kai oux omoousion (see Prolegg. ch. ii. §3 (2) b sub fin.). The distinction cannot (to those accustomed to use the `Nicene' Creed in English) be rendered so as to imply a real difference. The real distinction lies, not in the prefixes mono- and omo-, but in the sense to be attached to the ambiguous term ousia.
8 Heb. For the Lord hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall encompass a man.' Cf. Orat. ii. 46, note 5.
9 The same phrase also in Serm. M. de Fid. 18.
10 kuriakoj anqrwpoj, see above.
11 egennhqh (I Cor. i. 30,egenhqh). The two words are constantly confused in mss., and I suspect that egenhqh, which (pace Swainson p. 78, note) the context really requires, was what Ath, wrote
12 See also de Sent. Dionys. 17.
1 See Orat. ii. §24, 25, De Decr. §8, and Harnack, Dogmgesch. (ed. 2) vol. 2. p. 208, note.
2 This dramatic representation of the Mission of the Son stands alone in the writings of Athanasius, and, if pressed, lends itself to a conception of the relation of the Son to the Father which, if not Arian, is at least contrary to the more explicit and mature conception of Athanasius as formulated for example in Orat. ii. 31 (and see note 7 there). The same idea appears in Milton's Paradise Lost (e.g. Book X.) See Newman, Arians 4, p. 93, note.