Bad Advertisement?
Are you a Christian?
Online Store:Visit Our Store
| Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus.
PREVIOUS SECTION - NEXT SECTION - HELP 
Chapter XXI.—Defense
of Eusebius Pamphilus.
But since some have attempted
to stigmatize even Eusebius Pamphilus himself as having favored the
Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant here to make a few
remarks respecting him. In the first place then he was both present at
the council of Nicæa, which defined the doctrine of the
homoousion and gave his assent to what was there determined. And
in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he expressed himself in
these words:312
| 312Life of Const.III. 13.
|
‘The emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had rendered them
united in judgment on those points on which they were previously at
variance; so that they were quite agreed at Nicæa in matters of
faith.’ Since therefore Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene Synod,
says that all differences were removed, and that all came to unity of
sentiment, what ground is there for assuming that he was himself an
Arian? The Arians are also certainly deceived in supposing him to be a
favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps say that in his
discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of
his frequently saying through Christ,313
| 313Eusebius was accustomed to end his sermons with the
formula ‘Glory be to the unborn God through his only-begotten
Son,’ &c. So also at the end of his contra Sabell.
I.
|
to whom we should answer that ecclesiastical writers often use this
mode of expression and others of a similar kind denoting the economy of
our Saviour’s humanity: and that before all these the apostle314
made use of such expressions, and never has been accounted a teacher of
false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has dared to say that the
Son is a creature, as one of the others, observe what Eusebius says on
this subject, in his first book against Marcellus:315
| 315De Eccl. Theol.I. 8, 9, and 10.
|
‘He alone, and no other, has been declared to be,
and is the only-begotten Son of God; whence any one could justly
censure those who have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of
nothing, like the rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a
Son? and how could he be God’s only-begotten, were he assigned
the same nature as the other creatures…and were he one of the
many created things, seeing that he, like them, would in that case be
partaker of a creation from nothing? But the Sacred Scriptures do not
thus instruct us.’ He again adds a little afterwards:
‘Whoever then defines the Son as made of things that are not, and
as a creature produced from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he
concedes the name of Son, he denies him to be a Son in reality. For he
that is made of nothing, cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than
the other things which have been made; but the true Son of God,
forasmuch as he is begotten of the Father, is properly denominated the
only-begotten and beloved of the Father. For this reason also, he
himself is God; for what can the offspring of God be, but the perfect
resemblance of him who begot him? A sovereign indeed builds a city, but
does not beget it; and is said to beget a son, not to build one. An
artificer, also, may be called the framer, but not the father of his
work; while he could by no means be styled the framer of him whom he
had begotten. So also the God of the Universe is the Father of the Son;
but might be fitly termed the Framer and Maker of the world. And
although it is once said in Scripture,316
“The Lord created me the beginning of his ways on account of his
works,” yet it becomes us to consider the import of this phrase,
which I shall hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a
single passage to jeopardize the most important doctrine of the
church.’
These and many other such expressions Eusebius Pamphilus
has given utterance to in the first book against Marcellus; and in his
third book,317
| 317De Eccl. Theol.III. 2.
|
declaring in what sense the term creature is to be taken, he
says:
‘Accordingly, these things being thus established,
it follows that in the same sense as that which preceded, the words,
“The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, on account of his
works,” must have been spoken. For although he says that he was
created, it is not as if he should say that he had arrived at existence
from what was not, nor that he himself also was made of nothing like
the rest of the creatures, which some have erroneously supposed; but as
subsisting, living, pre-existing, and being before the constitution of
the whole world; and having been appointed to rule the universe by his
Lord and Father: the word created being here used instead of ordained
or constituted. Certainly the apostle318
expressly called the rulers and governors among men creature, when he
said, “Submit yourselves to every human creature for the
Lord’s sake; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as
those sent by him.” The prophet also319
when he says, “Prepare, Israel, to invoke thy God. For behold he
who confirms the thunder, creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ
unto men”: …has not used the word “he who
creates” in the sense of makes out of nothing. For God did not
then create the Spirit, when he declared his Christ to all men, since320
“There is nothing new under the sun”; but the Spirit
existed, and had being previously: but he was sent at what time the
apostles were gathered together, when like thunder “There came a
sound from heaven as of a rushing mighty wind; and they were filled
with the Holy Spirit.”321
And thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God, in accordance
with that prophecy which says,322
“Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates the Spirit, and
announces his Christ unto men”: the word “creates”
being used instead of “sends down,” or appoints; and
thunder in another figure implying the preaching of the Gospel. Again
he that says, “Create in me a clean heart, O God,”323
said not this as if he had no heart; but prayed that his mind might be
purified. Thus also it is said,324
“That he might create the two into one new man,” instead of
unite. Consider also whether this passage is not of the same kind,325
“Clothe yourselves with the new man, which is created according
to God”; and this,326
“If, therefore, any one be in Christ, he is a new
creature”; and whatever other expressions of a similar nature any
one may find who shall carefully search the divinely inspired
Scripture. Wherefore, one should not be surprised if in this passage,
“The Lord created me the beginning of his ways,” the term
“created” is used metaphorically, instead of
“appointed” or constituted.’
Such words Eusebius uses in his work against Marcellus; we have quoted them on account
of those who have slanderously attempted to traduce and criminate him.
Neither can they prove that Eusebius attributes a beginning of
subsistence to the Son of God, although they may find him often using
the expressions by accommodation; and especially so, because he was an
emulator and admirer of the works of Origen, in which those who are
able to comprehend the depth of Origen’s writings, will perceive
it to be everywhere stated that the Son was begotten of the Father.
These remarks have been made in passing, in order to refute those who
have misrepresented Eusebius. E.C.F. INDEX & SEARCH
|
