3 mapdvopor. vid, Hist. Ar. § 71 init. 75 fin. 79.
4 mpddpomov ’Avtixpiorov. vid. Orat. i. 7. Vit. Ant, 69. note on de Syn. 5. an: 5 Kat _Bovdopny wev orwmy...émeidy SE...avayKyy Exo. vid. Apol. contra. Ar. § x init. de Decr. § 2. Orat. i, 23 init. Orat. ii. init. Orat. iii. 1. ad Servap. i. 1. 16. ii, T init. ii. init. iv. 8 init. Letters 52. 2, 59- 3 fin. 61. 1. contra Afpollin. i. 1 init.
6 puréon, and infr. p¥wov. vid. Hist. Ar. § 3. § 80. de Decr.
7 axoas, and infr. akoas Bie. vid, Zp. Ag. § 13. Orat. i.
8 dxepaiwv. Apol. contr. Ar. § 1. Ep. Ag. § 18. Letters 9 éropOadpicas also used of Eusebius Afol. contr. Ar. § 6.
10 pyuatva. vid. de Decr. § 8, 18. Orat. i. 10. de Sent. § 23 init. §. Dionysius also uses it. Ibid. § 18.
11 xaxovorav. vid Hist. Ar. § 75. de Decr. § x. et al.
70 while in truth it clearly appears, that he does it to forward his own interests.
2. Now those who became apostates are these, Arius, Achilles, Aeithales, Carpones, an- other Arius, and Sarmates, sometime Presbyters: Euzoius, Lucius, Julius, Menas, Helladius, and Gaius, sometime Deacons: and with them Se- cundus and Theonas, sometime called Bishops. And the novelties they have invented and put forth contrary to the Scriptures are these follow- ing:—God was not always a Father *”, but there was a time when God was not a Father. The Word of God was not always, but originated from things that were not; for God that is, has made -him that was not, of that which was not; wherefore there was a time when He was not; for the Son is a creature and a work. Neither is He like in essence to the Father; neither is He the true and natural Word of the Father; neither is He His true Wisdom; but He is one of the things made and created, and is called the Word and Wisdom by an abuse of terms, since He Himself originated by the proper Word of God, and by the Wisdom that is in God, by which God has made not only all other things but Him also. Wherefore He is by nature subject to change and variation, as are all rational creatures. And the Word is foreign from the essence*3 of the Father, and is alien and separated therefrom. And the Father cannot be described by the Son, for the Word does not know the Father perfectly and accurately, neither can He see Him per- fectly. Moreover, the Son knows not His Own essence as it really is; for He is made for us, that God might create us by Him, as by an instrument; and He would not have existed, had not God wished to create us. Accordingly, when some one asked them, whether the Word of God can possibly change as the devil changed, they were not afraid to say that He can; for being something made and created, His nature is subject to change.
3. Now when Arius and his fellows made these assertions, and shamelessly avowed them, we being assembled with the Bishops of Egypt and Libya, nearly a hundred in number, ana- thematized both them and _ their followers. But Eusebius and his fellows admitted them to communion, being desirous to mingle falsehood with the truth, and impiety with piety. But they will not be able to do so, for the truth _ 12 ovK det marip. This enumeration of Arius’s tenets, and par- ticularly the mention of the first, corresponds to de Decr. § 6, Ep. Eg, § 12. as being taken from the Thalia. Orat. i. § 5. and far less with Alex. ap. Theod. p. 731, 2. vid. also Sent. D. § 16. kata- XONTTLKAS, which is found here, occurs de Decr. § 6.
. 73 ovolay® ovata Tod Adyou or Tod viod is a familiar expression with Athan. e.g. Ovat. i. 45, ii. 7, 9, IX, 12,43, 18" 1nit, 22, 47 Init. 56 init. &c., for which Alex. in Theod. uses the word UTogragis @.g. Thy iStdTpoTOY avTOD UmdcTacLW’ THS UMOTTATEWS QUTOV aneplepyaoTov" vewrrpay THs bmogTacews yeveowv” 4 Tov Movoyevous aveKdinyntos VogTAGLS" THY TOU Aéyou UNdaTACLW.
DEPOSITIO ARII.
must prevail; neither is there any “communion of light with darkness,” nor any “concord of Christ with Belial 4.” For who ever heard such assertions before'5? or who that hears them now is not astonished and does not stop his ears lest they should be defiled with such lan- guage? Who that has heard the words of John, “Tn the beginning was the Word *°,” will not denounce the saying of these men, that “ there was a time when He was not?” Or who that has heard in the Gospel, ‘the Only-begotten Son,” and ‘‘by Him were all things made 7,” will not detest their declaration that He is “one of the things that were made.” For how can He be one of those things which were made by Himself? or how can He be the Only-begotten, when, according to them, He is counted as one among the rest, since He is Himself a creature and a work? And how can He be “‘made of things that were not,” when the Father saith, ‘My heart hath uttered a good Word,” and “Out of the womb I have begotten Thee before the morn- ing star?®?” Or again, how is He “unlike in substance to the Father,” seeing He is the perfect ‘“‘image” and “ brightness?” of the Father, and that He saith, “‘He that hath seen Me hath seen the Father 2°?” And if the Son is the “ Word” and “ Wisdom” of God, how was there ‘‘a time when He was not?” It is the same as if they should say that God was once without Word and without Wisdom?:. And how is He “subject to change and variation,” Who says, by Himself, “I am in the Father, and the Father in Me”,” and “‘J and the Father are One *°;” and by the Prophet, ‘‘ Behold Me, for I am, and I change not?” For although one may refer this ex- pression to the Father, yet it may now be more aptly spoken of the Word, viz., that though He has been made man, He has not changed; but as the Apostle has said, “ Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, to-day, and for ever.” And who can have persuaded them to say, that He was made for us, whereas Paul writes, “for Whom are all things, and by Whom are all things 23?”
14 (2 Cor. vi. 14.) Kowwwvia gwri. This is quoted Alex. ap. Theod. #. £. i. 3. p. 738; by S. Athan. in Ze/ter 47, It seems to have been a received text in the controversy, as the Sardican Council uses it, 4Zo/. Av. 49, and S, Athan. seems to put it into the mouth of St. Anthony, Vzt. Ant, 69.
15 ris yap nKovoe. Ep, “Bg. §7 init. Letter 59. § 2init. Ovrat. i. 8. Afol. contr. Ar, 85 init. Hist. Ar. § 46 init. § 73 init. § 74 init. ad Serap. iv. 2 init. 16 Johni. 1.
20 (Joh, xiv. 9, 10, x. 29.) On the concurrence of these three texts in Athan. (though other writers use them too, and Alex. ap. Theod. has two of them), vid. note on Orvad. i. 34.
21 adoyov Kat agopov Tov Gedy. de Decr. § 15. Orat. i. § IQ.
Ap. Fug. 27. note, notes on O7, i. 19, de. Decr. 15, note 6, 22 (Mal. iii. 6.) This text is thus applied by Athan. Ovad. i. 30, li, ro. In the first of these passages he uses the same apology nearly in the same words, which is contained in the text. le DEPOSITION OF ARIUS.
71 4. As to their blasphemous position that “the | Son knows not the Father perfectly,” we ought not to wonder at it; for having once set them- selves to fight against Christ, they contradict even His express words, since He says, ‘As the Father knoweth Me, even so know I the Father 4.” Now if the Father knows the Son but in part, then it is evident that the Son does not know the Father perfectly; but if it 1s not lawful to say this, but the Father does know the Son perfectly, then it is evident that as the Father knows His own Word, so also the Word knows His own Father Whose Word He is.
5. By these arguments and references to the sacred Scriptures we frequently overthrew them; but they changed like chameleons?s, and again shifted their ground, striving to bring upon themselves that sentence, “ when the wicked falleth into the depth of evils, he despiseth?®.” There have been many heresies before them, which, venturing fur- ther than they ought, have fallen into folly; but these men by endeavouring in all their cavils to overthrow the Divinity of the Word, have justified the other in com- parison of themselves, as approaching nearer to Antichrist. Wherefore they have been excommunicated and anathematized by the Church. We grieve for their destruction, and especially because, having once been instructed in the doctrines of the Church, they have now sprung away. Yet we are not greatly surprised, for Hymenaeus and Philetus 27 did the same, and before them Judas, who followed the Saviour, but afterwards became a traitor and an apostate. And concerning these same persons, we have not been left without in- struction; for our Lord has forewarned us; “ Take heed lest any man deceive you: for many shall come in My name, saying, I am Christ, and the time draweth near, and they shall deceive many: go ye not after them *;” While Paul, who was taught these things by our Saviour, wrote, that “in the latter times some shall depart from the sound faith, giving heed to seducing spirits and doctrines of devils, which reject the truth °9.”
6. Since then our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ has instructed us by His own mouth, and also hath signified to us by the Apostle concerning such men, we accordingly being 25 yaporAcorres. vid. de Decr. § 1. Hist. Ar. § 79.
29 (x Tim. iy. r.) Into this text which Athan. also applies to the Arians (cf. note on Or. i. g.), Athan. also introduces, like Alexander here, the word by.avovons, e.g. Ep. Lg. § 20, Orat. i. 8 fin. de Decr. 3, Hist. Arian. § 78 init. &c. It is quoted without the word by Origen contr. Cels. v. 64, but with vytovs 7 Matth. t. xiv. 16.
Epiphan. has dwavovons didackadias, Her. 78. 2. vyovs 616. ibid.
personal witnesses of their impiety, have ana- thematized, as we said, all such, and declared them to be alien from the Catholic Faith.and Church. And we have made this known to your piety, dearly beloved and most honoured fellow-ministers, in order that should any of them have the boldness 3° to come unto you, you may not receive them, nor comply with the desire of Eusebius, or any other person writing in their behalf. For it becomes us who are Christians to turn away from all who speak or think any thing against Christ, as being enemies of God, and destroyers3* of souls; and not even to “bid such God speed3?,” lest we become partakers of their sins, as the blessed John hath charged us. Salute the brethren that are with you. They that are with me salute you.
Presbyters of Alexandria, 7. I, Colluthus, Presbyter, agree with what is here written, and give my assent to the deposition of Arius and his associates in impiety.
words (to say S. Alexander’s L Xpearepmoptav fpevoBra, peAayXOALKHY" Instances of the Alexander*, Presbyter, likewise Dioscorus 8°, _ Presbyter, likewise ee so -eresbyter, ikewise Eusebius, Presbyter, like- wise Alexander, likewise Nilaras *, Presbyter, like- wise Presbyter, Arpocration, Presbyter, likewise Agathus, Presbyter Nemesius, Presbyter Longus “8, Presbyter Silvanus, Presbyter Peroys, Presbyter Apis, Presbyter Proterius, Presbyter Paulus, Presbyter Cyrus, Presbyter, likewise Deacons. Ammonius*!, Deacon, Ambytianus, Deacon likewise Gaius #4, Deacon, likewise Macarius, Deacon Pistus#4, Deacon, likewise Athanasius, Deacon Eumenes, Deacon Apollonius #4, Deacon Olympius, Deacon Aphthonius #4, Deacon Athanasius #4, Deacon Macarius, Deacon. like- wise Paulus, Deacon Petrus, Deacon Alexander, Deacon Dionysius, Deacon Agathon, Deacon Polybius, Deacon, wise Theonas, Deacon Marcus, Deacon Comodus, Deacon Serapion *4, Deacon Nilon, Deacon Romanus, Deacon, like wise hke- 30 mpomerevoawo, vid. de Decr. § 2.
3t POopéas THY WuxXov.
pound word 4opomo.os. p. 731-; t nothing of the construction of sentences) found in etter in Theod., and unlike the style of the Cir- cular under review, are suchas 7 PiAapxos Kat piddpyupos mpodeccs: Bods: tSidtpomov* omoarotxors cvAAaBaits avridvactoAny THS TarpiKAs paLevoEws” Girdbeos saprjvera davoovoupyias: prnvadwy pvOnv. ological language in S. Alex. to which the Letter in the text contains no resemblance are axdépiota mpdéypara dvo- 5 vids Thy Kata wdvTa OmoLdTyTa adTOD eK PicEws arropakapevos: 80 éadntpov axndddrov Kat euydxouv Oclas eikdvos' pLectTEvOVTA pious povoyevys* Tas TH VTOOT Opovs amogToAovs* 2 2 John ro. 34 Vid. Presbyters, ib.
but S. Alex. in Theod. uses the com- Other compound or recondite ace. do pices.
33 Vid. Presbyters, Afol. Ar. 73.
42 DEPOSITIO ARII.
Presbyters of the Mareotis.
I, Apollonius, Presbyter, agree with what is here written, and give my assent to the deposition of Arius and his associates in impiety.
Ingenius*, likewise Ammonius, Presbyter Dioscorus*’, Presbyter Sostras, Presbyter Theon**, Presbyter Tyrannus, Presbyter Copres, Presbyter Ammonas *®, Presbyter Orion, Presbyter Presbyter, Serenus, Presbyter Didymus, Presbyter Heracles**, Presbyter Boccon *°, Presbyter Agathus, Presbyter Achillas, Presbyter Paulus, Presbyter Thalelzeus, Presbyter Dionysius, Presbyter, like- wise 36 Heraclius? ib.
Deacons.
Sarapion 87, Deacon, like- wise Justus, Deacon, likewise Didymus, Deacon Demetrius *?, Deacon Maurus *”, Deacon Alexander, Deacon Marcus 97, Deacon Comon, Deacon Tryphon*%, Deacon Ammonius*7, Deacon RS) ane or Didymus, Deacon Ptollarion #7, Deacon Seras, Deacon Gaius *7, Deacon Hierax 37, Deacon Marcus, Deacon Theonas, Deacon Sarmaton, Deacon Carpon, Deacon Zoilus, Deacon, likewise PT SORA EWS Bil: INTRODUCTION.
THE letter which follows, addressed by Eusebius of Caesarea to his flock, upon the con- clusion of the great Synod, is appended by Athanasius to his defence of the Definition of Nica (de Decretis), written about a.D. 350. It is, however, inserted here in the present edition, partly in accordance with the chronological principle of arrangement, but principally because it forms the fittest introduction to the series of treatises which follow. Along with the account of Eustathius in Theodoret % Z. i. 8, and that given by Eusebius, in his life of Constantine (vol. 1. pp. 521—526 of this series), it forms one of our most important authorities for the proceedings at Nicaea, and the only account we have dating from the actual year of the Council. It is especially important as containing the draft Creed submitted to the Council by Eusebius, and the revised form of it eventually adopted. The former, which contained (in the first paragraph of § 3, from ‘We believe’ down to ‘One Holy Ghost’) the traditional Creed of the Church of Caesarea, which Eusebius had _pro- fessed at his baptism, was laid by him before the Council, and approved: but at the Emperor’s suggestion the single word éyoovevr was inserted (not by ‘the majority’ as distinct from the Emperor, as stated by Swainson, Cveeds, p. 65). This modification opened the door for others, which eventually resulted in the Creed given in § 4. It is not altogether easy to reconcile this account with that given by Athanasius himself (below de Decr. 19, 20, Ad Afr. 5), according to which the Council were led to insist on the insertion of the époodvc.or by the evasions with which the Arian bishops met every other test that was propounded, signalling to each other by nods winks and gestures, as each Scriptural attribute of the Son was enumerated, that this also could be accepted in an Arian sense. Probably (see Prolegg. ch. ii. § 3 (1) note 5) the discussions thus described came first (cp. Sozom. i. 17): then Eusebius of Nicomedia presented the document which was indignantly torn up: then came the Confession of Eusebius of Czesarea, which was adopted as the basis of the Creed finally issued. In any case, the Emperor’s suggestion of the insertion of épzoovc1wwv must have been prompted by others, most likely by Hosius (77st. Ar. 42, Cf. Hort, Zwo Dissertations, p. 58. Gwatkin, Studies, pp. 44, 45, puts the scene described by Athanasius during the debate upon the final adoption of the Creed).
The translation which follows, with the notes and Excursus A, is the unaltered work of Newman (Library of the Fathers, vol. 8, pp. 59-72), except that the word ‘essence’ (for ovgia), as throughout this volume, has been substituted for ‘substance,’ and the translation of yernrés by ‘generate’ altered wherever it occurs, as explained in the preface. Additions by the editor of this volume are here as elsewhere included in square brackets.
COUNCIL OF NICALA.
Letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to the people of his Diocese *.
r. WHAT was transacted concerning ecclesi- astical faith at the Great Council assembled at Niczea, you have probably learned, Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to pre- cede the accurate account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves, and next, the second, which [the Fathers] put forth with some additions to our words. Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious? Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:— 2. “ As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in the presby- tery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this 3:— 3. “We believe in One God, the Father t This Letter is also found in Socr. H. Z. i. 8. Theod. H. &,. i. Gelas. Hist. Nic. ii. 34. p. 442. Niceph. Hist. viii. 22.
2 And so infr. ‘‘most pious,” § 4. ‘‘most wise and most re- ligious,” ibid. “‘ most religious,” § 8. § x0. Eusebius observes in his Vit. Const. the same tone concerning Constantine, and assigns to him the same office in determining the faith (being as yet un- baptized). E.g. ‘When there were differences between persons of different countries, as if some common bishop appointed by God, he convened Councils of God’s ministers; and not disdaining to be present and to sit amid their conferences,” &c. i. 44. When he came into the Nicene Council, ‘“‘it was,” says Eusebius, ‘fas some heavenly Angel of God,” iii. 10. alluding to the brilliancy of the imperial purple. He confesses, however, he did not sit down until the Bishops bade him. Again at the same Council, ‘ with pleasant eyes looking serenity itself into them all, collecting himself, and in a quiet and gentle voice” he made an oration to the Fathers upon peace. Constantine had been an instrument in conferring such vast benefits, humanly speaking, on the Christian Body, that it is not wonderful that other writers of the day besides Eusebius should praise him. Hilary speaks of him as “‘ of sacred memory,” Fragm. vy. init. Athanasius calls him ‘‘ most pious,’ AZol. contr. Arian. 9; ‘‘ of blessed memory,” ad Ep. Ag. 18. 19. Epiphanius “most religious and of ever-blessed memory,” Her. 70.9. Pos- terity, as was natural, was still more grateful.
3 “The children of the Church have received from their holy Fathers, that is, the holy Apostles, to guard the faith; and withal to deliver and preach it to their own children...Cease not, faithful aud orthodox men, thus to speak, and to teach the like from the divine Scriptures, and to walk, and to catechise, to the confirmation of yourselves and those who hear you; namely, that holy faith of the Catholic Church, as the holy and only Virgin of God received its custody from the holy Apostles of the Lord; and thus, in the case of each of those who are under catechising, who are to approach the Holy Laver, ye ought not only to preach Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the Father, by Whom also all things were made; Who for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge the quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost: ‘‘believing each of these to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, ‘Go teach all nations, bap- tizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost4.” Concern- ing Whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to shew and to convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and preaching.”
4. On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statefaith to your children in the Lord, but also to teach them expressly, as your common mother teaches, to say: ‘We believe in One God,’” &c. Epiph. Axcor. 119 fin., who thereupon proceeds to give at length the [so-called] Constantinopolitan Creed. And so Athan. speaks of the orthodox faith, as ‘issuing from Apostolical teaching and the Fathers’ tradition, and confirmed by New and Old Testament.” Letter 60. 6. init. Cyril Hier. too as “‘declared by the Church and established from all Scripture.” Cat. v. 12. ‘‘Let us guard with vigilance what we have received...What then have we received from the Scriptures but altogether this? that God made the world by the Word,” &c., &c. Procl. ad Armen. p. 612. ‘That God, the Word, after the union remained such as He was, &c., so clearly hath divine Scripture, and moreover the doctors of the Churches, and the lights of the world taught us.” Theodor. Diad. 3 init. “‘That it is the tradition of the Fathers is not the whole of our case; for they too followed the meaning of Scripture, starting from the testimonies, which just now we laid before you from Scripture.” Basil de SP. § 16. vid. also a remarkable passage in de Synod. § 6 fin. infra. 4 Matt. xxviii. 19.
COUNCIL OF NICAA.
75 ments. his own sentiments, and he advised all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent to them, with the insertion of the single word, One-in-essence, which moreover he interpreted as not in the sense of the affec- tions of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial, and intel- lectual, and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view 4 to the addition of One in essence, drew up the following formula:— The Fatth dictated in the Council.
“We believe in One God, the Father Al- oo Maker of all things visible and invisiei— “And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, Very God from Very God, begotten not made, One in essence with the Father, by Whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; Who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and cometh to judge quick and dead.
‘* And in the Holy Ghost.
* And those who say, ‘Once He was not,’ and ‘Before His generation He was not,’ and ‘He came to be from nothing,’ or those who pretend that the Son of God is ‘Of other sub- sistence or essence 4,’ or ‘created,’ or ‘alter- able,’ or ‘ mutable,’ the Catholic Church anathe- matizes.”
5. On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced “ of the essence of the Father,” and “fone in essence with the Father.” Ac- cordingly questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words under- went the scrutiny of reason. And they pro- fessed, that the phrase “of the essence” was indicative of the Son’s being indeed from the Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doc- trine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from 42 [Or, ‘taking the addition as their pretext.’]; 4» The only clauses of the Creed which admit of any question in their explanation, are the ‘‘ He was not before His generation,” and ‘‘of other subsistence or essence.’ Of these the former shall be reserve for a later part of the volume; the latter is treated of in a note at the end of this Treatise [see Excursus A.].
He confessed moreover that such were | the Father, not however a part of His essence’. On this account we assented to the sense our- selves, without declining even the term “ One in essence,” peace being the object which we set before us, and stedfastness in the orthodox view.
6. In the same way we also admitted “ be- gotten, not made;” since the Council alleged that “made” was an appellative common to the other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had no likeness. Wherefore, say they, He was not a work resem- bling the things which through Him came to be®, but was of an essence which is too high for the level of any work; and which the Divine oracles teach to have been generated from the Father 7, the mode of generation being inscrut- able and incalculable to every originated nature.
7. And so too on examination there are 5 Eusebius does not commit himself to any positive sense in which the formula ‘‘of the essence” is to be interpreted, but only says what it does not mean. His comment on it is ‘‘ of the Father, but not as a part;” where, what is not negative, instead of being an explanation, is but a recurrence to the original words of Scrip- ture, of which ef ovcias itself is the explanation; a curious inver- sion. Indeed it is very doubtful whether he admitted the ef ovcias at all. He says, that the Son is not like the radiance of light so far as this, that the radiance is an inseparable accident of substance, whereas the Son is by the Father's will, cara yvaunv Kal mpoatpecuy, Demonstr. Ev. iv. 3. And though he insists on our Lord being alone, éx cod, yet he means in the sense which Athan. refutes, supr. § 6, viz. that He alone was created immediately from God, vid. next note 6 It is true that he plainly condemns with the Nicene Creed the é& ov« dvrwy of the Arians, ‘‘out of nothing,” but an evasion was at hand here also; for he not only adds, accord- ing to Arian custom, ‘‘as others” (vid. note following) but he has a theory that no being whatever is out of nothing, for non-existence cannot be the cause of existence. God, he says, ‘‘proposed His own will and power as ‘a sort of matter and substance’ of the production and constitution of the universe, so that it is not reasonably said, that any thing is out of nothing. For what is from nothing cannot be at all. How indeed can nothing be to any thing a cause of being? but all that is, takes its being 707 One who only is, and was, who also said, ‘I am that I am.’” Demonstr. Bu. iv. 1. Again, speak- ing of our Lord, ‘‘ He who was from nothing would not truly be Son of God, ‘as neither is any other of things generate.’” ccd. Theol. i. g fin. [see, however, D.C.B. ii. p. 347].
6 Eusebius distinctly asserts, Dem. Lv. 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, dnurodpynua, of the Perfect, and the wise structure, apxitexrovnua, 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.’” Dey. Ev. v. 1. vid. also Eccl. Theol. i. g. ili. 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 fir- mament, 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.;.
7 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 OpL000- cwoy, to hinder the confession “of the essence” from implying a second essence, which was not obviated or was even encouraged by the ogocovovov. 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 76 EPISTOLA EUSEBII.
ee ee ee grounds for saying that the Son is “one in essence” with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal beings, for He is not such by division of essence, or by severance, no nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father’s essence and power ® (since from all such the unoriginate nature of the Father is alien), but because “one in es- sence with the Father” suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the originated creatures, but that to His Father alone Who begat Him is He in every way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and essence, but from the Father9. To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to as- sent; since we were aware that even among the ancients, some learned and _ illustrious Bishops and writers? have used the term “one in essence,” in their theological teaching con- cerning the Father and Son.
8. So much then be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and justified by the forementioned considerations. And as to the word ‘so’ implies a likeness of essence to essence.” Wer. 73. 10 fin. Hence Eusebius does not scrupte to speak of ‘‘two essences,” and other writers of three essences, coztr. Marc. i. 4. p. 25. He calls our Lord ‘‘a second essence.” Dem. Ev. vi. Pref. Prep. Ev. vii. 12. p. 320, and the Holy Spirit a third essence, ibid. 15. p. 325. This it was that made the Latins so suspicious of three hypostases, because the Semi-arians, as well as they, understood wrdcracts 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. Pref. vid. also érepov éxovga 70 Kat ovciav vroxeiwevov, Dem. Ev. v. 1. p. 215. ka8’ éavTov ovorwpmevos. ibid. iv. 3. And so érepos mapa Tov matépa. Eccl. Theol. i. 60. p. go. and Gwhy idiav éxwv. ibid. and Cav Kal VherTws Kal TOV TaTpos UmapyYwv ExTos. ibid. Hence Athan, insists so much, as in de Decr., on our Lord of being external to the Father. Once admit that He is in the Father, and we may call the Father, the o#ly 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.