The history of the church from our Lords incarnation, to the twelth year of the Emperour Maricius Tiberius, or the Year of Christ 594 / as it was written in Greek, by Eusebius Pamphilius ..., Socrates Scholasticus, and Evagrius Scholasticus ... ; made English from that edition of these historians, which Valesius published at Paris in the years 1659, 1668, and 1673 ; also, The life of Constantine in four books, written by Eusibius Pamphilus, with Constantine's Oration to the convention of the saints, and Eusebius's Speech in praise of Constantine, spoken at his tricennalia ; Valesius's annotations on these authors, are done into English, and set at their proper places in the margin, as likewise a translation of his account of their lives and writings ; with two index's, the one, of the principal matters that occur in the text, the other, of those contained in the notes.

CHAP. XXI. An Apology for Eusebius Pamphilus.

BUt in regard some have attempted to reproach this person, (I mean Eusebius Pamphilus) as if he were an Assertor of Arius's opinion in the books he hath published; I judge it not unseason∣able to say something concerning him. In the first place therefore, he was present at, and consented to, the Nicene Synod, which determined that the Son was coessential with the Father. Moreover, in his third * 1.1 Book concerning the Life of Constantine, he says word for word thus: But the Emperour incited them all to an unity of mind, until he had at that time reduced them all to be of the same mind and to have the same sentiments in relation to all those points, concerning which they had before disagreed. In so much that at Nice they did all perfectly agree in the [points] of Faith. Since therefore Eusebius, making mention of the Nicene Synod, does say, that all things about which they disagreed were com∣posed, and that they were all brought to be of one and the same mind and opinion; how can any persons judge him to be a maintainer of Arius's opinion. The Arians also themselves are mistaken, in their supposing him to be a fa∣vourer of their Tenets. But some body will perhaps say, that in his writings he seems to † 1.2 A∣rianize, in regard he always says a 1.3 By Christ. To whom we answer, that Ecclesiastick Writers have frequently made use of this Expression, and many other such like, which do signifie the dis∣pensation of our Saviours Humanity. And before all these [Writers] the Apostle Paul hath made use of these very expressions; and he was never thought to be the Teacher of a perverse opinion. Moreover, in regard Arius has been so audacious, as to stile the Son a Creature like unto one of those other [Creatures made by God;] hear what Eusebius saith (in his first book against Mar∣cellus,) concerning this; these are his very words: He only, and no other, hath been declared to be, and is, the only begotten Son of God, upon which account they are deservedly to be repre∣hended, who have audaciously stiled him a Creature, made of nothing like the rest of the Creatures. For how should he be a Son? How should he be Gods only begotten, who is entitled to the very same na∣ture with the rest of the Creatures, b 1.4 and would be one of those common Crea∣tures, in regard he (like them) is made a partaker of a Creation from nothing? But the sacred Oracles do not instruct us after this man∣ner concerning him. Then, after the interposition of some few words, he con∣tinues. Whosoever therefore doth determine that the Son is made of things which are not, and that he is a c 1.5 Crea∣ture produced out of nothing, that person hath forgotten, that he bestows upon him a name only, but in reality he denies him to be a Son. For he that is made of nothing, cannot truly be the Son of God, nor can any thing else which is made [be his Son.] But the true Son of God, in regard he is begotten of him as of a Father, ought deservedly to be stiled the only begotten and beloved of the Father. And therefore he must be God. For what can the off∣spring of God be else, but most exactly like to him that hath begotten him? A King indeed builds a City, but he begets not a City: but he is said to beget, not to build, a Son. And an Artificer may be said to be the Framer, not the Father, of that which he hath made. But he can in no wise be stiled the Framer of the Son who is begotten by him. So also, the supream God is the Father of his Son: but he is justly to be called the Maker and Framer of the world. And although this saying may be once found * 1.6 somewhere in the Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of his ways in order to his works, yet we ought duly to inspect the meaning of those words, (which I will explain afterwards;) and not (as Marcellus doth) subvert a principal point [asserted by] the Church upon account of one word. These and many other such like expressions Eusebius Pamphilus utters, in his First Book against Mar∣cellus. And in his Third Book [of that work,] the same Authour, declaring in what sense the term Creature is to be taken, says thus. These things therefore having been after this manner proved and confirmed, the consequence is (agree∣able to all things explained by us before,) that these words also, The Lord created me the begin∣ning of his ways in order to his works, must have been spoken [concerning the same per∣son.] But, although he says he was created, yet he must not be so understood as if he should say that he had arrived to what he is from things which are not, and that he also was made

of nothing in the same manner with the other creatures; which some have perversely supposed: but [he speaks this] as being a person subsisting; living, preexisting, and being before the founda∣tion of the whole world; having been constituted the Ruler of the universe by his Lord and Father: the term Created being in that place used instead of Ordained or Constituted. Indeed, the Apostle hath in express words stiled the Rulers and Governours amongst men a Creature, saying, * 1.7 Submit your selves to every Ordinance of man for the Lords sake, whether it be to the King as Supream: or unto Governours, as un∣to them that are sent by him And the Prophet (where he saith, † 1.8 Prepare to invoke thy God O Israel. For be∣hold he that firmeth the thunder, and createth the Spirit, and declareth his Christ unto men.) hath not taken the word Created in such a sense as to signifie That which hath been made when as before it was not. For God did not then Create his Spirit, when he declared his Christ to all men by him. ‖ 1.9 For there is no new thing under the Sun. But [the Spirit] was, and did subsist before. But he was sent at such time as the Apostles were gathered together, when (like thunder) * 1.10 There came a sound from hea∣ven, as of a rushing mighty wind: and they were filled with the holy Ghost. And thus they declared Gods Christ amongst all men, agreeable to that Prophesie, which saith. † 1.11 For behold he that firmeth the thunder, and createth the spirit, and declareth his Christ unto men: The term Createth being made use of, instead of Sendeth, or Constituteth: and the word Thunder in ano∣ther manner signifying the Preaching of the Gospel. And he that saith, ‖ 1.12 Create in me a clean heart O God, said not that, as if he had had no heart before: but he prayed, that his mind might be made perfectly pure within him. After the same manner this is spoken, * 1.13 For to make in himself of twain one new man, instead of to conjoyn. Consider also, whether or no this saying be of the same sort, † 1.14 Put on that new man, which after God is created: and this, ‖ 1.15 Therefore if any man [be] in Christ, [he is] a new crea∣ture: and whatever other [expressions] of this sort may be found by him that diligently searcheth the divinely inspired Scripture. You need not wonder therefore, because in this place * 1.16 The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, the term Created [is used] metaphorically, instead of Ordained or Constituted. After this manner Eusebius discourses in his Books against Mar∣cellus. We have produced his words here, upon their account, who have attempted causelesly to raile at and revile this person. Nor can they demonstrate, that Eusebius doth attribute a be∣ginning of Essence to the Son of God, although they may find him frequently making use of the expressions of dispensation: especially, because he was a great Emulator and Admirer of Origens Writings, wherein such as are able to understand Origens Books, will find [this] every where [asserted, to wit,] that the Son is begotten of the Father. Thus much we have said by the by, upon their account who have attempted to re∣proach Eusebius.

Notes

• * 1.1

  See Eu∣seb. concer∣ning the Life of Con∣stantine, book 3. chap. 13, 14 Edit. Vales.
• † 1.2

  That is, to assert Arius's o∣pinion.
• a 1.3

  Socrates means those Dox∣ologies, that occur at the end of Eusebius's Sermons; which Eusebius doth always put into this form: Glory be to the unborn Father by his only begotten Son, &c. This may plainly be seen in those Tracts of Eusebius's, which Jacobus Sir∣mondus hath published. For example, in the end of his first book against Sabellius, these are his words: Gloria uni non nato Deo, &c. i. e. Glory be to the one unborn God, by the one only begotten God the Son of God, in one holy Spirit, both now, and always, and throughout all ages of ages. Amen. And so concerning the rest. Also, in the Oration Eu∣sebius made at the Consecration of the Church at Tyre, (which oc∣curs at the Tenth book of his Eccles. Histor. chap. 4.) we meet with the same clause, at the close of that Speech; 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. by whom be Glory to him. For so we have worded that place, agreeable to three of our M. SS. Further, 'tis manifestly known, that the Arians attributed this preposition [per quem, by whom] to the Son, upon this design, that they might make him subject to the Father. See The∣odoret upon the first chapter of the first Epistle to the Corinthians. Vales.
• b 1.4

  Before these words there is a whole line wanting, (which (from the First Book of Eusebius de Ecclesiastica Theologia, Chap. 9.) is thus to be made up: 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. i. e. For by this means he would be their brother, rather than the Son of God: and would be one of those common Crea∣tures, &c. Vales.
• c 1.5

  Instead of [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] the reading should be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, produced as Eusebius words it, at the place be∣fore cited. It should also be [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] not [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.] For these two words, although they are distinguished but by one Letter▪ yet do very much differ in their significations. For the term [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] signifies that which is born; but [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉] imports that which is made. Vales.
• * 1.6

  See Prov. 8. 22. and what was remarkt concerning that Text, in chap. 19. of this book. note (‖.)
• * 1.7

  1 Pet. 2. 13, 14. Where the expression in the original is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉; which may be rendred thus, to every humane Creature.
• † 1.8

  Amos 4. 12. 13. Euseb. quotes this Text in the words of the Septuagint: but omits the word [〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, I:] we have rendred them according to his quotation; which is very different from the Hebrew, and from our English Version.
• ‖ 1.9

  Eccles. 1. 9.
• * 1.10

  Acts 2. 2, 4.
• † 1.11

  Amos 4. 13.
• ‖ 1.12

  Psal. 51. 10.
• * 1.13

  Ephes. 2. 15.
• † 1.14

  Ephes. 4. 24.
• ‖ 1.15

  2 Cor. 5. 17.
• * 1.16

  Prov. 8. 22.