Subject 3. Comparison of Photinians with Arians§. 8. Arians date the Son's beginning earlier than the Photinians. {522} 1. THE Eusebians [Note A], that is, the Ario-maniacs, ascribing a beginning of being to the Son, yet pretend not to wish him to have a beginning of kingly power. But this is ridiculous; for He who ascribes to the Son a beginning of being, very plainly ascribes to him also a beginning of kingly power; so blind are they, confessing what they deny. Again, those who say that the Son is only a name, and that the Son of God, that is, the Word of the Father, is unsubstantial and non-subsistent, pretend to be angry with those who say, "Once He was not." This is ridiculous also; for they who give Him no being at all, are angry with those who at least grant Him to be in time [Note B]. Thus these also confess what they deny, in the act of censuring the others. And again the Eusebians, confessing a Son, deny that He is the Word by nature, and would have the Son called Word notionally [Note 1]; and the others confessing him to be Word, deny him to be Son, and would have the Word called Son notionally, equally groping in the void. FootnotesA. [hoi peri Eusebion]. vid supr. p. 501.
Such as Eusebius of Cęsarea may be glanced at, who brings with great
indignation the charge against Marcellus, of his considering our Lord
as [basileus] only from His incarnation, i. 1. p. 6. ii. p. 32,
c. or that His Kingdom had a beginning, pp. 49, 50, 54. B.
On this difference between Sabellians and Arians, vid. supr. p. 114,
note B. The pre-existence of the Son is the main point urged against
Marcellus by Eusebius throughout his work, who makes much of what is
in fact the distinguishing mark, between their respective heresies.
Athan. urges it as a reductio ad absurdum against the Arian
interpretation of Phil. ii. 9, 10. that it really led to a denial of
this doctrine, supr. p. 234. Margin Note1. [kat epinoian].Return to text Newman Reader — Works of John Henry Newman |