|
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 Nicaea, 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: '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 Nicaea 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, 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
apostle 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:
'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?I 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, "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, 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 apostle 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 also
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, since "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."
And thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God, in accordance
with that prophecy which says, "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," said not this
as if he had no heart; but prayed that his mind might be purified.
Thus also it is said, "That he might create the two into one new
man," instead of unite. Consider also whether this passage is not of
the same kind, "Clothe yourselves with the new man, which is created
according to God"; and this, "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.
|
|