says he, Christus enim ne minimo quidem temporis puncto corpus suum reliquit. Quippe qui, ut vulgo dici solet, id quod semel assumsit, nunquam dimisit. Sed corpus suum animae consortio destitui aliquantisper passus est. An excellent distinction!

Eusebius calls Christ, τὸ φῶς τὸ προκόσμιον Ε. Η. i. 2: which Valesius translates æternum iumen. He should have rendered it antemundunum lumen, which, though not so elegant, is more exact; Eusebius could have said φῶς ἀΐδιον, if he had been so minded. He declares that the Son is Παλι συμβασιλέυων ἐξ ἀνάρχων αἰώνων εἰς ἀπεί ους καὶ ἀτελευτήτες αἰῶνας. reigns with his Father, from ages without beginning to ages without end. Laud. Const. i. p. 217. And again; & χρόνοις μέν τισιν ἐκ ὄντα, ὕσερον δέ πολύ γεγονότα, ἀλλὰ πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων ὄντα, καὶ πρίονα, καὶ τῷ Παν Τρὶ ὡς τὸν διαπαντὸς συνόντα-That is, There was not a time when he was not, or when he began to be, but he as Son always co-existed with the father. Dem. Evang. iv. p. 149. And in his Commentary on the Psalms ; Τί ν φη σι πρὸς αὐτὸν ὁ Κύριος, Εγώ σήμερον γεγένηκά σε ; δηλονότι περὶ τῆς χρονικῆς ἔφη γεννήσεως τῆς κατ ̓ οἰκονομίαν· περὶ ἡ τῆς ἀναρχο φησὶν αὐτὸς ὁ Δαυίδ. ἐκ γαςρὸς πρὸ ἑωσφόρε ἐγέννησά σε. Cur igitur ait illi Dominus: Ego hodie genui te? Id videlicet dé temporali generatione dictum, quæ per œconomiam Facta: De illa namque quæ sine principio est, ait ipse David: Ex utero ante luciferum genui te. p. 15.

This looks like an acknowledgment of the eternity of the Son, and this was also the opinion of his master Origen, who says, "Οτε δὲ τὸ ᾠός με εἴ συ, ἐγὼ σήμερον γεγέννη κά σε, λέγεται πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τὸ Θε8, ᾧ ἀεὶ ἐςι τὸ σήμερον, γδ ἑσπέρα Θεῖ, ἐγὼ δὲ ἡγᾶμαι ὅτι ἐδὲ προΐα, ἀλλ ̓ ὁ συμπαρεκτείνων τῇ ἀγενήτῳ καὶ ἀἰδίῳ αὐτῇ ζωῇ, ἵν ̓ ὅτων ἔπω, χρόνος, ἡμέρα ἐσιν αὐτ τῷ σήμερον, ἐν ᾗ γεγένηται ὁ ψός. ἀρχῆς γενέσεως αὐτῷ ὕτως εχ εὑρισκον κομένης, ὡς ἐδὲ τῆς ἡμέρας. Sed tum cum, Filius meus es tur

ego

ego hodie genui te, dicitur ad illum a Deo, cui semper est hodie, neque enim est vespera Dei, neque mane, meo quidem judicio, sed tempus (ut ita dicam) simul se extendens cum illa ipsius ingenita et sempiterna vita ipsi dies est hodie, in qua genitus est Filius; sic non invento originis ipsius principio, sicut neque dici. Comm. in Joan. p. 31. See more to the same purpose in Huetius, Origenian. p. 44. &c. Origen admitted also the eternity of the world, or of various beings eternally derived from God, and dependent upon him, and owing their existence to his will and power. This opinion was most generally received by the philosophers, and some Christians, perhaps, adopted it. But Origen proposed it rather as a philosophical problem, than as a doctrine. Origenian. p. 167. &c.

Eusebius says, that when the Word condescended to become man, his divinity was not impaired by it, but he was every where present, filling all things and ruling all things, ὐδὲ ἀποπεσὼν τῆς θεότηλος. Dem. Ev. p. 169.

He observes that all things owe their existence and their perfections to the Word, and to the Holy Spirit; that the Word called even the angels into being; and that the Holy Spirit at the same time illuminated and sanctified them. ̓Αγγέλων γῆν τὴν μὲν εἰς τὸ εἶναι πάροδον ὁ δημιτρ γὸς Λόγος ὁ ποιητὴς τῶν ὅλων παρείχετο τὸν ἁγιασμὸν δὲ αὐτοῖς τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον συνεπέφερεν. Com. in Psalm, p. 125.

τα

He says of Christ, E. H. i. 2 .—ωσανεὶ τὸ Πατρὸς ὑπάρ χονία δύναμιν και σοφίαν [ἰσοκλεῆ] καὶ τὰ δευτερεῖα τῆς κατὰ πάντων βασιλείας τε καὶ ἀρχῆς ἐμπεπιςευμένον.—ut Patris virtutem ac sapientiam, honore ipsi æqualem, et in regno ac principatu omnium rerum secundum locum obtinentem.

Here Valesius, as a fair and judicious critic, shuts out of the text isoxen, which was not in his manu

scripts,

scripts, and is a most manifest interpolation; and yet inserts in his translation, honore ipsi equalem, for reasons which one may easily guess. This was what he ought not to have done, and what would deceive several of his readers.

I say nothing of obtinentem, which yet expresses not ἐμπεπιτευμένον. Εμπιςεύομαι is, I have a thing intrusted and committed to me.

Η. Ε. iii. 6. Τοιαῦτα τῆς Ἰσδαίων εἰς τὸν Χρισὸν τῇ Θεο παρανομίας τε καὶ δυσσεβείας ταπίχειρα. Valesius translates, Igitur Judæorum scelus atque impietatem adversus Deum Jesum Christum hujusmodi ultio consecuta est.

Eusebius, to be sure, was very willing to call Christ Otòs, and hath given him that title an hundred times; but he has not called him so here. He calls him a τόθεον, Χ. iv. p. 468. that is, verum Deum, or naturd Deum; not, as Valesius renders it, per se Deum. Neither Eusebius, nor indeed any of the Nicene fathers would have called Christ αυλόθεον, in the sense of self existing, or First Cause. See the notes there. Οὐδὲ δύο θεὸς ἀνάγκη δῆναι τὸν τὰς δύο ὑποτάσεις τιθέντα· ὐδὲ τὰ ἰσολίμες αὐτ τὰς ὁριζόμεθα, εδ ̓ ἄμφω ανάρχες καὶ ἀγεννήτες· ἀλλὰ μίαν μὲν, τὴν ἀγέννητον καὶ ἄναρχον. θατέραν δὲ γεννητὴν, καὶ ἀρχὴν τὸν πατέρα κεκά Τημένην. Διὸ καὶ αὐτὸς ὁ ὑὸς, καὶ ἑαυτῶ εἶναι θεὸν τὸν αὐτὸ πατέρα διό δάσκει, ἐν οἷς φησι, ̓Ανέρχομαι πρὸς τὸν πατέρα με καὶ πατέρα ὑμῶν, καὶ Θεόν με καὶ Θεὸν ὑμῶν.—Ὁ δὲ ὑὸς, ὅτε μὲν αὐτὸς παραβάλλε ται τῷ παρὶ, ἐκ ἔτ ̓ ἔσαι καὶ αὐτὸ τὸ παρὸς Θεὸς, ἀλλ ̓ τὸς μονο γενὴς καὶ ἀγαπητὸς αὐτῷ, καὶ εἰκὼν τὸ Θεὸ τῇ ἀοράτε, καὶ ἀπαύγασμα τῆς πατρικῆς δόξης· σέβει τε καὶ προσκυνεῖ καὶ δοξάζει τὸν ἑαυτῷ παλέ ρα, Θεὸν αὐτὸν καὶ ἑαυτῇ ἐπιγραφόμενος. De Eccl. Theol. xi. 7. Thus rendered by Dr Clarke :

"It is not necessary that he who acknowledges the • Father and the Son to be two distinct subsistences, should say that there are two Gods: for we do not

"look

look upon them, as two co-ordinate persons, both of "them underived and unbegotten; but one unbe"gotten and underived, the other begotten and de"rived from the Father. Wherefore the Son also "himself teaches us, that his Father is even his God alsó, [as well as ours;] when he says I ascend unmy Father and your Father, unto my God and your God.-But now on the other side, the Son, "when he is compared with the Father, cannot be "said to be the God of his Father, but his only-beέσ gotten and beloved Son, and the image of the invi"sible God, and the brightness of his Father's glory; "and honours and worships and glorifies his Father, แ calling hint even his God also, [as well as ours."]

Christus Eusebio dicitur aurilios ipse Deus, et anlivos Oi, verus Deus, scilicet comparate ad homines qui aliquando di appellantur: nam comparate ad Patrem, sive Deum universorum, non vere et proprie Deus dicitur, secundum Eusebi sententiam:

Ait Filium πρὸ χρόνων αἰωνίων et πρὸ πάντων αἰώνων, id est, ante sæcula, productum: nam sæcula et tempus omne cum mundo cœpisse cum multis aliis veteribus arbitratur, nec vox airios apud Eusebium, pro æternitate ante creationem usquam sumitur: nam hujusmodi æternitatem in Filio evidenter negat. Montfaucon Prelim. ad Euseb. in Psalmos, p. 24:

He says of Christ, πρωτείοις μὲν τῆς τῶν ὅλων ἀρχῆς, ΙΣΟΙΣ δὲ τῆς πατρικῆς βασιλείας ἐνδοξαζόμενος. qui prcerogativam quidem honoris obtinet principatum universi: æqualem autem cum Patre gloriam in Patris possidet regno. Laud. Const. i. p. 719.

Here Valesius translates the text as it stands in the copies, for which he is not to be blamed, and as a fair commentator, observes in his notes that "res must have

VOL. II.

G

been

been thrust in by some transcriber, and that Eusebius wrote devlepeios. In gubernatione quidem universi Filium ait principem locum obtinere: in regno autem Patris secundum. The emendation is unquestionably right, and the reasons which Valesius gives for it are unanswerable. It is not the business of a critic or an editor to make his author more or less orthodox than he

was.

In Socrates ii. 37. Valesius has twice Deum et Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum, where there is no Deum in the text, and where they who speak are Arian bishops.

Eusebius, "Ηδη γᾶν ὅλην Χρισιανών πολίχνην αὔτανδρον ἀμφὶ τὴν Φρυγίαν ἐν κύκλῳ περιβαλόνιες ὁπλῖται, πῦρ τε ὑφάψαντες, και Τέφλεξαν αὐτὸς ἅμα νηπίοις και γυναιξὶ, τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸν Χρισὸν

Cowμers. Certe urbem quandam Christianorum in Phrygia milites armati obsidione cinxerunt, injectoque igne totam una cum viris et mulieribus ac parvulis Christum omnium Deum invocantibus concremarunt. viii. 11.

The phrase, τὸν ἐπὶ πάντων Θεὸν Χρισὸν, is very remarkable; but as it is a manner of speaking which Eusebius hath never used in any other place, and which he has expressly condemned, I believe it should be, Tòr Ti πάντων Θεὸν ΚΑΙ Χρισὸν ἐπιβοωμένος, supremum Deum et Christum invocantes. or, KAI TON Xpisòr-as De Mart. Pal. viii.ὃς τὸν τῶν ὅλων Θεὸν, ΚΑΙ τὸν Χρισὸν ὁμολογήσανίας. 1. 1. μόνον ἕνα Θεόν, ΚΑΙ μόνον Χρισὸν βασιλέα Ἰησῶν ὁμολογήσανλες. viii. 10. τὸ τῆς ψυχῆς ὄμμα πρὸς τὸν ἐπί πάντων Θεὸν καθαρῶς τείναντες—τὸν μὲν Κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησῶν Χρισόν-And in many other places which it is needless to cite.

These are not words taken down by some bystander, but the expressions of the historian, describing Christian martyrs, men, women, and children, all

praying