In Defense of Eusebius Pamphilus

Some have tried to brand even Eusebius Pamphilus himself as one who favored the Arian views in his works, so it may not be out of place to say a few words about him here. In the first place, he was present at the Council of Nicaea, which defined the doctrine of the homoousion, and he agreed to what was decided there. And in the third book of the Life of Constantine he expressed himself in these words: “The emperor urged them all to agreement, until he had brought them to one mind on the points on which they had previously differed, so that at Nicaea they were entirely agreed in matters of faith.” Since, then, Eusebius, in speaking of the Nicene synod, says that all differences were removed and that all came to one mind, what ground is there for assuming that he was an Arian himself? The Arians, too, are certainly mistaken in thinking that he favored their teachings. [a]

But someone will perhaps say that in his discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because he so often says “through Christ.” We would answer him that church writers often use this way of speaking, and others like it, which refer to the plan of salvation carried out in our Savior’s humanity; and that before all of them the apostle used such expressions, and he has never been counted a teacher of false doctrine. Moreover, since Arius dared to say that the Son is a creature, one of the others, see 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 Son of God. So anyone could justly blame those who have dared to say that he is a creature made out of nothing, like the rest of the creatures. For how then would he be a Son? And how could he be God’s only Son, if he were given the same nature as the other creatures … and were one of the many created things, since he, like them, would in that case share in a creation out of nothing? But the sacred Scriptures do not teach us this.” A little later he adds: “Whoever, then, defines the Son as made out of things that are not, and as a creature produced from nothing that existed before, forgets that while he grants him the name of Son, he denies that he is a Son in reality. For one who is made out of nothing cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things that have been made. But the true Son of God, since he is begotten of the Father, is rightly called the only Son and the beloved of the Father. For this reason he himself is also God; for what can the offspring of God be but the perfect likeness of the one who begot him? A king builds a city, but does not beget it; and he is said to beget a son, not to build one. A craftsman, too, may be called the maker of his work, but not its father; while he could never be called the maker of one whom he had begotten. So also the God of the universe is the Father of the Son, but might fitly be called the Framer and Maker of the world. And although Scripture says once, ‘The Lord created me the beginning of his ways on account of his works,’ we ought to consider the meaning of this phrase, which I will explain later, and not, as Marcellus has done, put the most important doctrine of the church at risk on the strength of a single passage.” [f]

Eusebius Pamphilus says these and many other things like them in the first book against Marcellus. And in his third book, explaining in what sense the word creature is to be taken, he says: [g]

“Accordingly, these things being established, it follows that the words ‘The Lord created me the beginning of his ways, on account of his works’ must have been spoken in the same sense as what came before. For although he says that he was created, he does not mean that he came into existence from what did not exist, or that he too was made out of nothing like the rest of the creatures, as some have wrongly supposed. He means that he was existing, living, already there, and being before the whole world was set in order, and that he had been appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and Father. The word created is used here instead of ordained or appointed. Certainly the apostle plainly called the rulers and governors among men a 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 call on your God. For see, he who makes the thunder firm, creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ to people’ … did not use the words ‘he who creates’ in the sense of making out of nothing. For God did not create the Spirit at the time when he declared his Christ to all people, since ‘there is nothing new under the sun.’ The Spirit existed and had being before. But he was sent at the time when 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 so they declared the Christ of God to all people, in keeping with the prophecy that says, ‘See, he who makes the thunder firm, creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ to people.’ Here the word ‘creates’ is used instead of ‘sends down’ or appoints, and the thunder, in another figure, means the preaching of the gospel. [h]

Again, the one who says, ‘Create in me a clean heart, O God,’ did not say this as if he had no heart; he prayed that his mind might be purified. So also it is said, ‘that he might create the two into one new man,’ instead of unite. Consider too whether this passage is not of the same kind: ‘Clothe yourselves with the new man, which is created according to God’; and this: ‘If, then, anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature’; and any other expressions of the same kind that anyone may find who searches the divinely inspired Scripture carefully. So no one should be surprised if, in this passage, ‘The Lord created me the beginning of his ways,’ the word ‘created’ is used figuratively, instead of ‘appointed’ or established.”

These are the words Eusebius uses in his work against Marcellus. We have quoted them for the sake of those who have tried to slander him and accuse him. Nor can they prove that Eusebius ascribes to the Son of God a beginning of his existence, even though they may find him often using such expressions loosely, as a manner of speaking. This is all the more so because he was a follower and admirer of the works of Origen; and those who are able to grasp the depth of Origen’s writings will see it stated everywhere in them that the Son was begotten of the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius.