Asterius

 THIS writer, already noticed in art. Arian Leaders, seems according to Athan. to have been hired to write upon the Arian side, and argued on the hypothesis of Semi-Arianism. He agrees very much in doctrine with Eusebius, and in moderation of language, judging by the extracts which Athan. has preserved. (Vid. also Epiph. Hær. 72, 6.)

 Like Eusebius, he held (Orat. ii. § 24) that the God of all created His Son as an instrument or organ, or [ hypourgos ], of creation, by reason of the necessary incapacity in the creature, as such, to endure the force and immediate presence of a Divine Hand (vid. art. [ akratos ]), which, while It created, would have annihilated. (Euseb. Demonstr. iv. 4; Eccl. Th. i. 8, 13; Præp. vii. 15; Sabell. p. 9.)

 But, says Athanasius, it is contrary to all our notions of religion to suppose God is not sufficient for Himself, and cannot create, enlighten, address, and unite Himself to His creatures immediately. "The Word has with His Father the oneness of Godhead indivisible. Else, why does the Father through Him create, and in Him reveal Himself to whom He will, etc. ... If they say that the Father is not all-sufficient, their answer is impious." Orat. ii. § 41. And such an answer seems to be implied in saying that the Son was created for creation, illumination, etc., etc.; vid. art. Mediation .

 He considered that our Lord was taught to create, and without teaching could not by His mere nature have acquired the skill. "Though He is a creature, and has been brought into being," Asterius writes, "yet as from Master and Artificer has He learned to frame things, and thus has ministered to God who taught Him," Orat. ii. § 28, vid. art. Eusebius, who speaks of the Word in the poetical tone of Platonism.

 Also he distinguishes after the manner of the Semi-Arians, between the [ gennetike ] and the [ demiourgike dunamis ]. Again, the illustration of the Sun (Syn. § 19) is another point of agreement with Eusebius; vid. Demonstr. iv. 5.

 And he, like Eusebius, is convicted of Arianism beyond mistake, in whatever words he might cloak his heresy, by his rejection of the doctrine of the [ perichoresis ]. "He is in the Father," he says, "and the Father again in Him, because neither the word on which He is discoursing is His own, but the Father's, nor the works, but the Father's who gave Him the power." Orat. iii. § 2.

 He defined the [ agennetos ], or "Ingenerate, to mean that which never came into being, but was always" (Orat. i. § 30); and then he would argue, that God being [ agennetos ], and a Son [ gennetos ], our Lord could not be God.

 While, with the other Arians, he introduced philosophical terms into theology, he with them explained away Scripture. They were accustomed to interpret our Lord's titles, "Son," "Word," "Power," by the secondary senses of such terms, as they belong to us, God's children by adoption; and so Asterius, perhaps flippantly, answered such arguments, as "Christ God's Power and Wisdom," by objecting that the locust was called by the prophet "God's great power." Syn. § 19.

 He argues, in behalf of our Lord's gennesis following upon an act of Divine counsel and will, that we must determine the point by inquiring whether it is more worthy of God to act with deliberation or not. Now the Creator acted with such counsel and will in the work of creation; therefore so to act is most worthy of Him; it follows that will should precede the gennesis also. But in that case the Son is posterior to the Father.