διορισαμένων ὅτι ἐχ ὡς ἐν τῶν κτισμάτων. ὅρα εἰ μὴ εὐθὺς πάλιν αὐ τοῖς ἀφορμὴ δίδοται εἰς τὸ ἐπιλαβέσθαι καὶ διαβάλλειν ὁρμᾶσθαι ὅσα καὶ θέλεσι. πάλιν αὐτὲς ἡτιῶ λέγοντας ὅτι ὁ ὢν τὸν μὴ ὄντα ἐγέννησε. θαυμάζω δὲ εἰ δύναταί τις ἄλλως εἰπεῖν. εἰ δ' εἷς ἐσιν ὁ ὤν, δῆλον ὅτι

ἐξ αὐτὸ γέγονε πᾶν ὅ, τι καὶ ἔσι μετ ̓ αὐτὸν. εἰ δὲ μὴ μόνος αὐτός ἐσι

1

او

་་

ὁ ὤν, ἀλλὰ καὶ γιὸς ἦν ὁ ὤν, καὶ πῶς τὸν ὄντα ὁ ὢν ἐγέννησεν ; 25' är dúo Suo in ra örla. Accusunt eos literæ tuæ tanquam dicentes Filium ex non existentibus factum esse, sicut unum ex omnibus. At illi protulerunt epistolam quam ad te dederant, in qua fidem suam explicantes, ipsis verbis haec confitebantur, Legis ac prophetarum et Novi Testamenti Deum genuisse Filium unigenitum, ante tempora mundi, per quem et omnia et mundum fecit; genuisse autem eum non specie tenus sed vere subsistentem, propria voluntate, immutabilem et inconvertibilem, CREATURAM Dei perfectam, sed non sicut unam ex creaturis. Si ergo literae ipsorum vera profitentur, scriptum omnino apud te etiam eorum fertur, in quo confitentur Filium Dei ante tempora mundi per quem et mundum fecit, esse immutabilem, et creaturam Dei perfectam, sed non ut unam creaturarum; tua ver ro epistola eos insimulat, quasi dicentes Filium factum fuisse sicut unam creaturarum; cum hoc non dixerint, sed clare definierint, non esse instar unius creaturarum. Vide annon protinus illis occasio detur adgrediendi, reprehendendi, et calumniandi, quæcunque voluerint. Iterum eos accusabas dicentes, ab eo qui erat genitum esse eum qui non erat. Mirum si quis aliter dicere possit. Sienim unus est qui erat, manifestum est ex eo fuisse quicquid est post eum. Si autem ille solus non est qui erat, sed et Filius etiam erat, quomodo existentem is qui erat genuit? Sic fuissent duo quæ erant.

Ὁ Ὢν τόν ΜΗ ΟΝΤΑ ἐγέννησε, says Eusebius, with the Arians. The question is, what he means by 'o "ÎŊ,

whether

whether the Self-Existing, or the Eternal. If he means the Eternal, he denies the past-eternity of the Son; if only the Self-existing, he only denies his self-existence. Le Clerc charges him with shuffling in this controversy, and screening his Arianism under ambiguities : but why had not Eusebius as good a right to interpret the poor for himself, as Athanasius, or Alexander, or other persons had, to put their sense upon it? The disputants were engaged in a ruxlouaxía, a nightskirmish, as Socrates justly calls it, and Eusebius seems to have been willing to comply with the Consubstantialists as far as he could, and to interpret the Nicene creed in such a manner, as to make it acceptable to the Arians; and the difference, at that time, between the two parties was of such a kind, that it was not easy to be exactly determined.

Le Clerc had a dispute with Cave, whom he charged with writing the lives of the fathers like a panegyrist, and not as an impartial historian, and with vindicating the orthodoxy of Eusebius, who, as Cave said, was a Consubstantialist, and, as Le Clerc affirmed, was an Arian. Amongst other things, Le Clerc complains that certain divines were far more favourable to the ancient fathers than to modern writers, and would excuse in the former what they would condemn in the latter; and in this there was too much truth. If any one had said to those patrons of Eusebius; You affirm that Eusebius was orthodox, and I grant it: will you then permit me to use the same language, and to speak upon the subject as he did? certain I am that he could not have obtained their consent, or escaped their severest censures and indigna

"Although Eusebius made no difficulty to acknow"ledge in the Nicene council that the Son of God "was before all ages, and clearly rejected the im

66

piety of Arius, who said that he was made out of "nothing, and that there was a time when he was "not, yet was he very unwilling to admit the word “ Consubstantial, that is, to acknowledge that the Son "is of the same substance with the Father; and "when he assented to this word, he gave it a sense "which will not establish the coëquality of the Son, "since in a letter which he wrote to his own church "to give them an account of his conduct, he speaks "thus: When it is said that the Son is consubstantial "with the Father, the meaning is only that the Son hath "no resemblance to the creatures which were made by

him, but hath a perfect resemblance to his Father, of "whom he was begotten, and not from any other

hypostasis or substance.-If One might justify Eu"sebius concerning the divinity of the Son, yet it "would be difficult to defend his notions concer

ning the Holy Ghost: for in his Præparatio and "Demonstratio, and Eccles. Theol. he affirms that he is not truly God. The Holy Spirit, says he, is nei"ther God, nor Son of God, because he hath not his origin from the Father, like the Son, but is of the num"ber of the things which have been made by the Son.

This shews that Socrates, Sozomen, and some modern writers, have in vain endeavoured to excuse "him entirely, and on the other hand that it is a great injustice to call him Arian, and head of the "Arians, as Jerom hath done.-Eusebius was not "author of any new formularies of faith, he conducted no intrigues to ruin Athanasius and his par"tizans: he would much rather have been instru

"" mental

Cons

"mental in pacifying and reuniting the two parties. "I doubt not but that his many amiable qualities "caused him to be set down in the number of saints " in some ancient martyrologies.-It is true that he "hath not remained in quiet possession of this title: "but, in my opinion, it were a temerity to judge him absolutely unworthy of it." Du Pin.

tians

Eusebius testifies that in his time there were some slender remains of miraculous gifts and powers. Speaking of the miracles of Christ, believed by Chrisupon sufficient evidence, he adds; hтαsα was ἡμῖν καὶ βεβασάνισαι καὶ δι' ἑτέρων πραγμάτων ἐναργῶν—δι ̓ ὧν αὐτός ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν οἷς ἂν κρίνειεν, μικρά τινα τῆς αὐτῷ δυνάμεως કે @apaqaíven elobe. Exquisita sane hæc a nobis explorataque sunt, aliis quoque evidentibus rebus-quibus ipse Dominus noster etiam nunc iis quos dignos putaverit, exigua quædam suce virtutis signa ostendere consueverit. Dem. Ev. iii. p. 109.

Τίς δὲ ἐκ οἶδεν ὅπως σὺν αὐτῇ τῇ τὸ Ιησὲ προσηγορίᾳ, καὶ σὺν εὖકે χαῖς καθαρωβάταις πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνων ἔργον ἀπελαύνειν ἡμῖν φίλον ἐσιν ; εἰσέτι δεῦρο πᾶς δαίμων καὶ πᾶν ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα, ὥς τι τῶν κοι કે λασικῶν καὶ βασανιτικῶν τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως, το Ιησε τὸ ὄνομα φρίττει, ὑπεξίςαλαί τε και παραχωρεῖ τῇ τῆς προσηγορίας δυνάμει. Quis autem ignorat nostræ esse consuetudinis, ipso Jesu nomine, et purissimis precibus omnem Dæmonum vexationem abigere?-Hodie quoque omnis Daemon, omnisque impurus Spiritus ita Jesu nomen exhorret, ut unum aliquid eorum quæ ipsius naturam castigandi ac torquendi vim habeat, aufertque se illico, et concedit: tantam sentit illius nominis vim. Dem. Ev. iii. p. 132.

"Constantia, the Sister of Constantine, wrote to "Eusebius, to desire him to send her a certain "image, which was supposed to be the image of Je"sus Christ; for Eusebius himself tells us that in his

66

"time there were to be seen pictures of our Saviour, "of St Peter, and of St Paul, and that he had seen at "Paneas a statue of Christ, which the woman was "said to have erected who had been cured by him of "a bloody-flux. Eusebius returned an answer to "Constantia, of which we have only some fragments "remaining. It appears that he would not send it "to her: but as to the reasons for his refusal, it is "not easy to comprehend the solidity of them. All "that can be said is that he endeavours to take her "off from contemplating the human nature of Christ, "and to induce her rather to consider his divinity, "But he seems to go so far as to say that his huma nity had ceased after his ascent into heaven, and "he hath been accused of entertaining this opi

"nion.

"The enemies of holy images have made use of "this letter, and they who have refuted them have "allowed it to be genuine, but maintain that it was "of no authority and weight, as coming from an "Arian. It is certain that Eusebius seems not much "to approve the use of images; and yet himself gives "us reason to think that God approved of them, "when he speaks of the miracles which were said to "be wrought by the statue of Christ that was at Pa"neas; for he dares not maintain that what was re"lated concerning it was false." Tillemont, H. E.

vii. 43.

Eusebius relates the story of the statue at Paneas, as an historian, and gives it with an exeyor, as a thing generally believed. He adds, for the sake of those who had ears to hear, that the Gentiles, who received miraculous favours from Christ or from his apostles, might in all probability have honoured their benefac

tors