The Error of Asterius regarding Eusebius

And a bitter pain, because he believed the Galatians regarding godliness to be not as that man was boasting, nor even two substances, but that things and powers and gods were being spoken of. Thus also Eusebius of Caesarea has written, having the same glory for both Paul and those from the outside regarding gods. For he wrote not as if there were only one god, but as there is one of the only true God. Therefore, having learned, Asterius's father Paulinus thought that there were newer gods.

How then did these, having turned to the same worst path as those from the outside, intend to teach and write the same things, as Eusebius spoke similarly to Valentinus and Hermas, and Narcissus to Marcian and Plato? But having set aside the true knowledge, he provided for us an artful system and now has demonstrated a theory. For not having the will to construct his own from the divine writings, he rushes upon the wisest, as he thinks, a father claiming; which the wisest of the fathers in their own local arrangements have decided.

Asterius says that his father has decided upon a resolution and has written a dogma regarding God from their own choice. For the name of dogma has the character of human will and opinion. And that this is so, the dogmatic art of the physicians testifies sufficiently to us, and the so-called dogmas of the philosophers also testify; and that even those things which seemed to be in agreement are still called dogmas of agreement, I think no one is ignorant of.

For having wished to sympathize with Eusebius, who wrote the letter badly, he said, first of all, not having developed the dogma teaching-wise, that he arranged the letter; for the letter was not made for the church nor for those who are ignorant, but for the blessed Paulinus, having said blessed him for this reason, that he had the same glory as Asterius. Since we have learned that the wisest of the fathers are Asterius's, I think it follows to say that he became a teacher of both Paulinus and the others. For from the letter of Paulinus, he having become his teacher would have been evident to us.

Even if it is necessary to speak the truth about Origen, it is fitting to say this: that he, having lately turned away from the studies according to philosophy and having preferred to converse with the divine through words before the precise grasp of the Scriptures, began to write by preferring the much and ambitious external education to that which is necessary; he was provided with words by those of philosophy, and through them he did not write well. It is evident; for he, still remembering the dogmas of Plato and the difference regarding the principles with him, wrote a book 'On Principles' and placed this as the title upon the treatise. A greatest example of this is that he made the beginning of the words from nothing other than the title of the book, but from the sayings spoken by Plato; for he wrote beginning thus: 'Those who have believed and have been persuaded.' This spoken thing, having been said thus, one would find in Plato's Gorgias.

And I deem it worthy of those encountering the holy writings, having truly received seeds and principles of this explanation, to add more proofs to those things said, so that even more the predispositions of those turning away from the faith might be checked. For truly, the God who begat them 'left them, and they dug for themselves broken cisterns' (Jeremiah 2:13).

I think it follows to speak briefly and concerning the icon. For he wrote: 'Another is he who was born from him, who is the icon of the invisible God' (Colossians 1:15). Because of this 'icon,' Asterius remembers the invisible God, in order to teach how much the God of the Word differs, just as a man seems to differ from his own icon.

Because of this, it is appropriate that he brings forward 'who is the icon of the invisible God.' When did he become an icon, or how long did he take 'according to icon and according to likeness' as a form? For previously, as I have often said, he was nothing other than the Word. Is it not therefore evident that before the assumption of our body, the Word in himself was not an icon of the invisible God? For it is fitting to see an icon, so that through the icon the entirely unseen might be able to be seen. How then has Asterius written that the Word of God is an icon of the invisible God? For icons of those things which are icons are also indicative of the absent, so that even the absent seems to appear through them. But if it happens that the Word is invisible while the invisible God exists, how can the Word be an icon of the invisible God, being himself invisible? For it is impossible for the unseen to be seen through the...