THEOPHANIA.
 

PRELIMINARY DISSERTATION.

To Which (will be) Added Lee's Notes from the Body of the Work

As the usefulness of any Book must very much depend on the belief entertained of the orthodoxy of its author, I have thought it right to discuss as briefly as possible the following questions: First, The alleged Arianism of Eusebius: secondly, his views of Prophecy, generally; and thirdly, his belief that no restoration of the Jews, and no personal reign of Christ on earth, are to be expected. I think it right to use my best endeavour to place these questions in their true light, because I conceive much mistake exists respecting them.
 

PART I. ON CERTAIN OPINIONS OF EUSEBIUS.

• Section I. On the alleged Arianism of Eusebius, and on the manner in which he has expressed his opinions.
• Section II. On the Opinions of Eusebius, as deducible from the History of the Council of Nice.
• Section III. On the Opinions of Eusebius as discoverable in his Controversy with Marcellus. (lvi)
• Section V. On the charge advanced by Photius against our Author, alleging that he erred with Origen, on the resurrection of the dead.
• General Conclusion. (xcviii)

PART II. INTRODUCTORY REMARKS ON THE VIEWS OF EUSEBIUS ON PROPHECY.

• Section I. On the period termed by Eusebius " the Time of the End"
   

PART III. ON THE PERSONAL REIGN OF CHRIST ON EARTH.

• "I need now only say, All these things have been done : the old and elementary system passed away with a great noise ; all these predicted Empires have actually fallen: and the New kingdom; the New heaven and earth, the New Jerusalem,—all of which were to descend from God, to be formed by his power, have been realized on earth; all these things have been done in the sight of all the nations : God's holy arm has been made bare in their sight"

PART IV. ON THE RESTORATION OF THE JEWS

• "As to the other questions, just mentioned, they are so intimately connected with this, that what determines the one must also determine the other : if the requirements of Prophecy are fulfilled ; then nothing remains to be done by the Jews for this purpose. The period is past; and faith in the Christ of God, is now their only resource ; and this comprehends no privileges whatsoever of an earthly nature."

 

• Gap from pages 67-84

---

PART I.

ON CERTAIN OPINIONS OF EUSEBIUS.

---

As the usefulness of any Book must very much depend on the belief entertained of the orthodoxy of its author, I have thought it right to discuss as briefly as possible the following questions: First, The alleged Arianism of Eusebius: secondly, his views of Prophecy, generally; and thirdly, his belief that no restoration of the Jews, and no personal reign of Christ on earth, are to be expected. I think it right to use my best endeavour to place these questions in their true light, because I conceive much mistake exists respecting them.

Section I.

On the alleged Arianism of Eusebius, and on the manner in which he has expressed his opinions.

 

In prosecuting this inquiry, our first business will be to determine, what the opinions of Arius were: our second, what those were which our author himself held, and how he has usually expressed these.

I would premise then, that in endeavouring to ascertain the religious belief of any writer, it is our duty to abide by his positively expressed opinions, and to attach to his words the precise sense, which it is most obvious be intended they should bear. If indeed, we think we see reason for suspecting his honesty, or feel difficulties in accounting for his conduct on certain occasions, we ought perhaps to put the best construction we can on these things; because the sources, from which they may have come down to us, might in the first instance have been any thing but pure; and in the second, from the little we can now know of the exact bearing of all such particulars, our knowledge respecting them must necessarily be very imperfect.

Our questions however,—whatever may be the difficulties inherent in them in some respects,—do not appear to me to be greatly embarrassed in these. The great questions are, What did Arius positively propose for belief? And, What does Eusebius appear to have believed, with reference to the creed of this Heresiarch ?

The leading opinion of Arius was, as it appears from his own statements, that there was a time in which Christ, the Son of God, had no positive existence whatsoever [Socratis Hist. Eccl. Lib. I. c. v. "GREEK" "Si Pater genuit Filium, existendi initium habet is qui genitus est. Ex quo manifeste liquet, fuisse aliquando tempus, cum non esset Filius : et necessario conficitur, eundem ex nihilo subsistere."  We have ib. cap. vi. the Bishop of Alexandria's Letter to the Bishops generally, containing his comments on the dogmas of Arius. After which follows that of Constantine, exhorting both the parties to merge their differences, and not to dispute on matters such as these, which were small and of no moment! which Socrates praises as evincing great wisdom; and to this Le Clerc seems to agree. Constantine's words are,... "GREEK" "De quadam parte inanis quaestionis." And, a little lower down, that no new dogma had been introduced, but as both held the same opinion (virtually), they might well agree together. "GREEK" I would remark here, that Constantine evinced neither the mind of an enlightened Believer, nor of a wise Governour; as indeed the sequel most abundantly proved. To be so liberal as to disregard the truth, is as rotten a policy, as it is to deal out secular pains and punishments on account of religious belief, however erroneous such belief might be. We have a similar account of the opinions of Arius, in Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. c. xv. Theodoret. Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. cc. ii. iv. The Epistle of Arius himself, ib. c. v. The Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre, ib. c. vi. Philostorg. Hist. Eccl. Lib. n. 3. Epiphan. Heres. v. 69, as quoted by Le Clerc. Montfaue. Colleet, nov. Patr. p. xvii. &c. and Cave's Hist. Lit. Tom. I. p. 120. Edit. 1088.]; that He was begotten; by which he understood, was produced out of nothing. These I take to have been the leading doctrines of Arius; and those, out of which, and about which, the great controversy that agitated the Church, soon after it was established by Constantine, originated and was carried on.

 

What, in the next place, are the opinions positively and clearly expressed, and maintained, by Eusebius? In our following work, p. 5, Christ is termed " the only (begotten) Word of God, whom the Maker of all generated of Himself, as a ray of light from His own Godhead." He is next spoken of as a Mediator, (p. 6,) appointed by the Father, to whose Godhead perishable beings, such as we are, could make no possible approach. The Word of God is then described as having meekly lowered Himself, become the efficient Cause of all things (p. 8. seq.), the Creator, Ruler, and Governour, of all.

The Person of the Father is then (p. 11. seq.) more particularly described as the (primary) Cause of every thing; incomprehensible, unrevealed, and reserved in the unseen depth of (His own) knowledge. From Him, the Son, or Word of God, is next described as a river ever flowing from an unlimited fountain, and distilling as rain to beings otherwise perishing. The Father is next spoken of as, in some respects, similar to the mind concealed within man ; the Son, to the Word, sent forth announcing its determina­tions: and this again, in a manner exceeding all comparison, and least of all like the word of man, which is produced by a mere percussion of the air [Guarding in this against the errors of Marcellus, as we shall see hereafter. And let it be remembered, that, although our author has in­stituted comparisons with regard to the Father, the Son, and the Holy-Ghost, his intention seems to have been, only to give an illustration, and not by the illustration to determine the abstract nature of the Beings so illustrated, as this context is sufficient to shew.] : the Divine Word being the living minister of God, " the power of God," and " the Wisdom of God."

In the next place (p. 14.), He is said to be the God that is begotten of God, and then John i. 1. is cited as the Scriptural warrant for this. Again, (p. 15.) He is termed the LIFE and the Light which cannot be described. A little farther on (p. 18.), the Father is said to be the Head (source) of the generation of the Word," and the originating cause of all, and therefore truly styled the Father and God above all, beyond whom no cause can be assigned. From Him, it is added, proceeded forth the Son, the only begotten Saviour of all. Again, He is said to be in all things like to His Father, (so also p. 30), and to extend Himself throughout all things. Again, (p. 21) He is declared to be in nothing incomplete because horn of God; and, as being God of God, He is sufficient for all, and Almighty : and is the one, image of His (Father's) essence. Again, (p. 26. seq.) a comparison is instituted between the Father and the Son, with reference to the Divine Economy, by a royal court; the King remaining concealed and unapproachable; the Son sustaining the office of first minister, and sending forth the determination of His Father's will throughout the various orders of society under his government.

In Book ii. Sect. 3, the Son, or Word of God, is said to have had no beginning; and Book in. p. 178, it is affirmed, that He still remained with His Father, notwithstanding His incarnation, just as He was before, immaterial, incor­poreal, and unchanged, as to His (eternal) essence [It will be objected perhaps, that the word Eternal does not occur in our text. I answer, the term is generally used in the Syriac in this sense; and, if it be a translation,—which it most likely is,—of the Greek ούσία, there can be no doubt on the mind of those who are accustomed to read the Philosophers, that, in this place the Eternal Essence is meant.]: and (ib. p. 179), that even when He conversed among men, He filled all things, was with the Father, and was in Him. So far we may perhaps conclude, that there does appear to be a wide and palpable difference of opinion, between our author and the celebrated heresiarch Arius.

Before however, we can fully enter into the mind of Eusebius on these questions, we must inquire how he rea­soned about Deity in the abstract, and of created Beings with reference to this : we shall then be able to see, what he meant when he spoke of a Being generated of God, coming forth of God, and, at the same time, having a positive existence, subsistency, or person, and sustaining the character of a rational agent.

On this subject then, he has delivered himself most fully and unreservedly in his Praeparatio Evangelica. The place to which I now allude is Lib. xi. cap. ix. p. 523. seq. He commences with Exod. iii. 14, where Moses, speaking in the person of God, says, / am that (Being) which I am. "Σγώ είμτ ό ών" Thus shalt thou say to the children of Israel, The Being hath sent me to you;" laying it down, that God is the only Being truly existing; and shewing, that He (alone) is properly and conveniently worthy of this appellation. This, he goes on to tell us, is the real source and origin of all things both spiritual and corporeal. He then cites Plato to the same effect, and reasons accordingly, just as he has in our work, (Book 11. sect. 24, 33, with the notes, also ib. sect. 44, 46, with the notes [It should be borne in mind, in reading the works of Eusebius, that, as he reasons very much in imitation of Plato, we should be careful to understand him accordingly. When, for example, he speaks of Being (ό ών, or τ όν), in the abstract, he means that Being alone which is properly called God, as in the following work, pp. 31, 89: p. 96, sect. 33, with the Notes: also p. 104, sect. 44: p. 106, sect. 45; ib. p. 108. So Le Clerc. of Plato. Bibl. Univers. Ann. 1088, p. 387. "II croit qu'il n'y, qu'un Dieu supreme, spirituel et invisible, qu'il appelle d'Etre meme, le Bien meiue, le PeRe et la Cause de tons les autres.—Hence too, we occasionally find the Syriac term , word, used in our work in the sense of Reason, which I have marked in the notes, just as the Platonists did the Greek λόγος.]). This is followed up in the Praeparatio Evangelica, with a long extract from Numenius, (cap. x.), and another from Plutarch, (cap. xi.) which we shall presently notice. We are then taught, that the Godhead is incapable of description by words (cap. xii.) ; and then that He is One ; Deut. vi. 4. is now cited to establish this. The opinions of Plato are again quoted, expressive of God's all pervading character, power, justice, and the like; and, as corresponding with this, we have Isaiah xli. 4; Ps. x. 8; Deut. xxxii. 35; Ps. xxx. 24; Deut. xiii. 4; James iv. 6; and Job xx. 5, according to the lxx. All of which is apparently intended to afford a determinate, ample, and full view of the abstract nature of the Deity, as conceived by our author.

We are taught in the next place, and in the same context, that all Being must be one of two kinds only; either that which is spiritual, and to be perceived by the intellect only ; or that which is material, and is known by the senses; that the former of these is immortal and impervious to de­cay; the latter, the contrary. And it is elsewhere argued, that of spiritual Beings, those which are brought nearest to the Godhead, are those which partake most largely of its character (not of its essence necessarily) : those, which are otherwise, the reverse [Our Work, pp. 24, 27, 29, 30, 35, &c.]: that it is through the mediation of the Son alone, that any such approximation as this can be made by the creatures; and that light, life, and every heavenly virtue can be known by them.—That the Son is of the same essence, (ούσία) with the Father, is ever with Him, and in Him: is filled with all the fulness of His Father's Godhead bodily [Eccles. Theol. Lib. in. p. 195 A... "GREEK" Com. in Is. xlii. "GREEK" Col. ii. 9, and again, Com. in Psalm. p. 354.  "GREEK"   "Neque enim modo habitavit in illo, modo recessit ab eo; sed in infinitum ac semper Pater in Filio inhabitat."  He had just before said, that this indwelling is not such as that of God is, when it is said that He walks in his people. (2 Cor. vi. 16.)] : and that, notwithstanding His incarnation, humiliation, sufferings, and death, His Godhead remained, just as it was before, complete and perfect [Our Work below, pp. 21, 25, 55, 89, 96,104, 108, &c.], immaterial, all-pervading, almighty, unutterable. We have here therefore, a full and marked distinction established between the Divine nature, and, that of the creatures, whether spiritual or corporeal.

The Deity is next viewed by our author, with respect to the Divine Economy (ή οίκονομία), which term however does not occur in our Work [It is to be found however in his Eccles. Hist. Lib. i. cap. i. twice, p. l.... "άπό πρώτης άρξομαι τής κατά τον Σωτήρα καί κύριον ήμών GREEK..." Ab ipsa Servatoris ac Domini nostri Jesu Christi incarnatione" (dispensatione) "initium ducam." Ib. p. 2.... "GREEK"..."Ab ipsa quae captum longe superat humanum Servatoris Christi dispensatione, et ab ejusdem divinitatis expositione repetetur." Where we have a manifest distinction made between the terms θεολογϊας, and οίκονομίας : the former having respect to the Deity of our Lord considered in the abstract; the second, to his office sustained in the Divine Economy. This term occurs also in the very valuable Greek work of Eusebius, lately published by Dr. Gaisford, entitled "Eclogae Prophetarum," (Oxonii. 1842.) pp. 13, 17, 32, &c.—According to the Fathers generally, the Economy (οίκονομία) had respect (i.) to the providence and government of God generally. So Epiphanius Haeres. lxiii. "GREEK" "Non norunt Dei potentiam, neque bonitatem, neque ipsius sapientiae gubernationem." So also Greg. Nyss. Catechet. Mag. cap. xii. Tom. iii. p. 67. Chrysost. Lib. i. de Provid. cap. vii. &c, as cited by Suicer. Thesaur. Eccles. sub voce.   (ii.) To the ministry of the New Test. Eph. iii. 2. Col. i. 25. 1 Cor. ix. 17: termed by Gregory of Nyssa, "GREEK". Orat. Catechet. cap. xxv. Tom. iii. p. 83, &c. cited ib. by Suicer.   (iii.) To the Incarnation of our Lord. So Theodoret. Dial. ii. cap. ix. Tom. iv. p. 62. (ib. Suicer), "GREEK". "Incarnationem Dei verbi, aeconomiam vel assumtam humanitatem, vocamus." Our author however, speaks of this as being in operation previous to the incarnation of our Lord, (Eclog. Prophet, as noticed above, p. 13), where, speaking of God's appearing to Abraham, Gen. xviii. I9), and shewing that it cannot apply either to the God of all (i.e. the Father), or the angelic nature, he says it must apply to the Word, "GREEK". Whom we have believed both to have variously appeared, even before the incarnation for the salvation of men, and to have effected the dispensations contained in the divine Scriptures. He goes on to say, that to Him alone, after the God of all (the Father), is the four-lettered appellation (i.e. Jehovah) found to be applied. The same is implied (ib. pp. 31, 32.) on Exod. xiii. 21, where the Hebrew text has Jehovah]. But this is of no importance, as it is most clear, the thing itself does: and, it is worthy of remark, Eusebius is perhaps more particular than the Fathers generally in marking the dealings of the Deity with the creatures, in this respect, at a much earlier period than they usually do. For example, he makes our Lord a mediator between God and the Angels, even before man had a being [Contra Marcel, p. 8. B.]. In this respect generally it is, that he speaks of the Holy and thrice blessed Trinity, as he now terms the Godhead, and speaks of the generation, or issuing forth, both of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. To each of these he assigns a peculiar office, and Person or ύπόστασις, for the aid and benefit of the rational creatures, and in order that all these,—which are capable of this,—might be made such as their rational nature, received from the Son, declares they ought to be; and thence, to be made partakers of a higher nature and of higher joys in His immediate presence above. It appears therefore, that he speaks of the Deity under two points of view. One, under which he views Him in His abstract character, and as being the Creator, Governour, and God of all (termed ή μοναρχία) : another, under which he considers Him, as subsisting in the Holy Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, revealed as such with reference to the Divine Economy, and particularly as it respects the creation, redemption, and final salvation of Man: directly and positively asserting, that these are of one and the same Essence (ούσία) : that the Son, and the Holy Ghost, have proceeded out of the Father; and that, as far as it respects their offices in the Economy, they are considered inferior to the Father, inasmuch as He is superior [See page 11. of our work. The same sentiment is expressed by Philo Judaeus, in the Tract entitled, "GREEK"  Edit. Steph. p. 91. "GREEK" To be free from labour is most appropriate to God. See also p. 83.] to the every thing like ministration, either of office or of rule: that He can be revealed to His creatures, only by the mediation and ministration of the Son : and known to any saving extent, solely by the ministration of the Holy Ghost  [Comm. in Psalm, p. H09. Com. in Is. p. 520-7, 574. Eccles. Theol. p. 171, seq. ]. In conformity with this latter mode of viewing the Deity, He terms the Father the First Cause, the Son, the Second, and the Holy Ghost, the Third: not for the purpose, as far as I can see, of lowering in any degree the Divine nature of either: but solely for that of speaking more intelligibly and definitely respecting the Office and Person of each, as sustained in the Divine Economy. Whether Eusebius did right or wrong in making this technical distinction, is not the question here: with this I have now nothing to do. I have only to inquire, what he meant, when he set it up, and reasoned accordingly.

These questions are discussed at some length, in the xith, xiith, and xiiith chapters of the Seventh Book of the Praeparatio Evangelica, and again, from chap. ix. to chap. xx. of the Eleventh Book of the same work : from some of which I shall make a few extracts, sufficient, as I trust, to shew what the mind of our author was. In chap. xii. then of the Seventh Book he tells us, that the Hebrews introduce a Second Essence [The text stands thus: "GREEK". Which Viger translates, "Naturam alteram" (incorrectly, and then warns the reader of the Arianism of Eusebius, which he himself had created. See also his note on the passage) "constituunt, vimque divinam, quae cum eorum omnium quae gignuntur principium sit, tum ante caeteras omnes extiterit, ab eodemque primo Principio genita fuerit, quam ipsi (i.e. Hebraei) Verbum, Sapientiam, Deique Virtutem appellare solent." Where it may also be remarked, "constituunt, vimque divinam," is any thing but an accurate translation of the Greek. In the first of these cases, he has supposed that ούσία was to be taken in the sense of Φυσις which is indeed often done by the Fathers. It seems not to have occurred to him, that they do nevertheless use ούσία in the sense of ύπόστασις:, Person, with the view of guarding against the errors of Marcellus, Paulus of Samosata, and others; with the first of whom our author had a warm controversy, "Ousia vero vocabulum" (says Suicer sub voce).."de Christo usurpari coepit, quia Samosatenus et Marcellus Filium Dei vocarunt (GREEK), verbum, quod ex ore prodit: ut docet Epiphanius haeresi LXIII. pag. 366." And hence we are told (page 12 of our work) that Christ is not "constituted in His nature by the enunciation of names and words," &c. &c. It is worthy of remark, too, that the Arians were most averse to the term ούσία, Essence, as applied either to the Father or the Son, (see Suiceri Thes. ib.) because, by this, when applied to Christ, His being Homoousian with the Father was implied.] and Divine Power, the Principle of all created beings; the First subsisting, and Begotten of the First (Essence), terming Him the Word, and the Wisdom, and the Power of God. He goes on to shew, that Job (xxviii. 20), David (Ps. xxxiii. 6), Solomon (Prov. viii. 12, ib. 22—30): also Wisd. vi. 24; vii. 22; viii. I. [I omit citing these passages in order to save space. I would suggest that they ought to he examined. Le Clerc adds, Wisd. Sol. viii.19: ix. 2: xviii. 15, 10: which are sufficient to determine the Platonizing character of its author. ] had this Being in view. And he then tells us, that this Divine Word is variously represented in Holy Scripture, as sent by the Father for the salvation of men : that He shewed Himself to Abraham, Moses, and other Prophets beloved of God, and taught them many things by Divine enouncements and predictions, where it is said that God and the Lord appeared and spoke to them ; that the same came for the knowledge of all, as a Saviour and Physician of diseased souls, being sent by a Greater [Here Viger warns us again, that this is to be read with caution. "Locus hie caute legendus." But, might he not as well have cautioned us against St. John, nay against our Lord Himself, in the same way, where it is said, "My Father is greater than I?" (Chap. xiv. 28.) The question is not so much in cases of this sort, as to what the naked words are, but as to the manner in which we ought to view them. Our author is manifestly speaking here of our Lord as engaged in the office of a ministering servant in the Divine Economy; and this as before, prior to His Incarnation: which however he has, more than once, affirmed had no influence whatever in lowering the character of His Divine nature.]. He then cites Ps. cvi. 20.  " He sent His word and healed them," &c. Ps. cxlvii. 4. "His word runneth very swiftly:" and after this John i. 1—5. We are next told, that Moses, inspired as he was, introduces God speaking to His First-begotten Word, on the creation of Man, thus; "Let us make man in our image and likeness :" and as agreeing with this, Ps. xxxiii. 9, is cited, "He spake and they were made; he commanded, and they were created.'"  This he says evidently marks the discourse of the First with the Second Cause, as of a Father with a Son. We are then informed that Moses speaks in other places of Two Lords, as in the destruction of Sodom ; "The Lord rained upon Sodom and Gomorrha brimstone and  fire, from the Lord out of heaven." (Gen. xix. 24). So "The Lord said unto my Lord" &c. (Ps. cx. 8.) is a similar place: and, in the same (Ps. ver. 4.) the inexplicable and mysterious Generation of the Son is intimated. In the same work (Lib. xi. cc. xxiii. xiv.) the same question is discussed ; and here, Prov. viii. 12, 22. seq. is cited, as is also, Wisd. vi. 24; vii. 25; viii. l, as already remarked. All of which appears to me, to have been intended to mark, as existing under the former dispensation, a recognition of the distinct personality and Divinity of the Son; it being more than once affirmed, that this Person was that designated by the name Jehovah (τετράγραμμον) under that dispensation [This inquiry is prosecuted to a still greater length, in the work of our author lately published by Dr. Gaisford, entitled "Eclogae Prophetarum." I will here point out a few places only. In pages 6, 6, we have Gen. xi. 5, 6, 7 cited, where the term (HEBREW) is used, and is applied by our author to Christ, as ministering to the Father in the Divine Economy. Again (p. 6 seq.), Gen. xii. 1. 7: xiii. 14: xv. 1, 7. (Not Gen. 7, as there marked), xvii. 1: xviii. 1 : 16—20, 22—25, 33. All of which, we are told (p. 9), cannot, as revealed to Abraham and enounced in the four-lettered name (i.e. Jehovah), apply either to any Angel, or to any Divine Power a little superior to the Angels, but does to God Himself. After noticing some other passages, in which mere angels are said to have appeared as to Abraham and Lot, we are told (p. 11 seq.) that a comparison of the Old with the New Testament, will shew that the Father is invisible, nevertheless that God is said both by Moses and the Prophets to have variously appeared. (Is. vi. 5 is pointed out, which St. John, xii. 41 explains of Christ, all of which is referred to Christ, (ib. p. 13), and as done by him under the Divine Economy, even before His incarnation, as already noticed. I mention these few places, merely as specimens of our author's mode of treating on the Person of Christ, which I think could not have been done by any Arian. Similar interpretations of places in Genesis are given by Cyril of Alexandria against Julian. Lib. viii. p. 267, &c. Edit. 1696. et ib. p. 292 seq. as they also are by Theodoret in his work published by Dr. Gaisford, p. 84 seq.].

We are next presented with an account of the Word, according to the mind of Philo Judaeus, and Aristobulus, a Jewish writer contemporary with the Ptolemies ; the most remarkable parts of which only I shall notice. Philo tells us then,—after stating that the Divine Oracles well ascribe the Image of God to the Word, as to a second God; no mortal nature being adequate to the bearing of such impression, and the like,—that the Eternal Word of the Everlasting God, is the most powerful and firm support of all things." "GREEK" Where we may observe, the Word (λογος) is said to be eternal; as it is above, to be a second God. Philo proceeds, very much in the manner of our author [Theoph. p. 7, seq.], "GREEK" Which Viger translates, "Hoc enim illud est, cujus arbitrio dum a mediis ad extrema, simulque a summis ad media pertinet, constitutus ac perpetuus naturae cursus peragitur. Partes enim omnes inter se se consociat atque constringit, quod illud Pater, a quo genitum est, firmissimum quoddam totius universi vinculum esse voluerit." Aristobulus (ib. Lib. vn. cap. xiv.) tells us, that the Wisdom which Solomon describes (Prov. viii.) as being prior to the creation of the world, the Stoics consider as a sort of Lamp to be followed during their whole lives, in order to be preserved from every sort of perturbation. Again, (Lib. xi. c. xv.) Philo goes on : "GREEK" "Decet enim, eos qui cum scientia societatem inierunt, ejus quod est, videndi desiderio teneri: aut si minus id possint, ejus saltern imaginis, hoc est sacratissimi Verbi." And again, (ib.) "GREEK" [Zech. vi. 12, according to the LXX] "Ut quis minus adhuc filii Dei appellatione dignus fuerit, se ipsum tamen ad primogenitum illius Verbum...conformare conetur.  Etenim Principium, Dei Nomen, Verbum, Homo secundum Imaginem, et videns Israel appellatur."  A little lower down ("the Man whose name is Anatole (lit. Rising as of the Sun, Auth. Vers. the Branch) [This passage is found in Philo's work, entitled, "GREEK" . Edit. Steph. p. 231.] is said to have been spoken of by one of the friends of Moses; and He is said to have been thus named, who is otherwise called the Firstborn, because the Father of all caused Him to arise (as the Sun) : "GREEK"

It must be obvious I think from all this, that, whatever Philo and Aristobulus might have been as Platonists, they could not, as Jews, have supposed this second God to have been any thing less than Jehovah Himself; and this Philo seems to imply when he says, that He is the Being, termed the Beginning [Alluding perhaps to Is. xii. 4, &c. In the Tract however, (GREEK), &c. p. 343. Edit. Steph. God is said to be the Principle or Beginning of generation. (GREEK)] or Principle, the Name of God, and Word ; the Man according to Image, and the seeing Israel [The place probably had in view is Gen. xvi. 13, where it is said that "She called the name of the Lord (Jehovah  (HEBREW))  that spake unto her, Thou God seest me:" where Israel seems to stand for the Hebrew El (HEBREW) Philo explains this passage, in the outset of his Tract entitled "(GREEK)" (p. 306), and says, that the Angel who met Hagar was the Divine Word (GREEK): which the Hebrew text shews was Jehovah. Again, in the Tract "(GREEK)" ib. p. 400, The Archangel, the Lord, is said to have stood on the top of the ladder (in Jacob's dream, Gen. xxviii. 13.)  (GREEK) and to have said, I am the Lord God of Abraham thy Father, &c. (GREEK) Where there can be no doubt, the Divine Word is meant; and, that it is intended to identify this with Jehovah. Many similar places may be cited: but this is unnecessary.], (comp. Gen. xvi. 13.) The name of God, it is well known, is often put for God in the Old Testament. [Cruden's Concord, under "Name," will supply the places.]  In this respect therefore there is, if we may rely on this reasoning, between Philo and our author a complete agreement.

The opinions of Plato, on the Second Cause or Deity, will be found in the Praeparatio Evangelica of our author, (Lib. xi. cap. ix. xvi., and ib. xvii, as taken from his Commentator Plotinus; ib. xviii. from Numenius; ib. xix. from Amelius), and in the Second Book of our following Work (sectt. 24, 27, 29); they need not therefore be repeated here. Nor is it intended to enter at length either on the opinions of Plato, or on those of his Commentators. It will be sufficient for our purpose, and it will have greater weight, to state, as briefly as we can, the general results arrived at by Cyril of Alexandria,—a writer by no means likely to favour Arian views,—and Theodoret, the very elegant, learned, and judicious Bishop of Cyrus, on this subject.

Cyril then, in his work against Julian (Lib. vni. p. 267 seq. Edit. 1696), after citing Gen. i. 26. "Let us make man in our image," &c. as well as several other passages, and shewing that both the Son and Holy Ghost are here implied, as subsisting in the Deity, proceeds (p. 270) to shew, that even the Philosophers acknowledged three primitive Subsistences; and held, that to the Essence of the Deity there appertained Subsistences to the number of three: sometimes too, laying down the term Trinity, they assent to the opinions of the Christians; nor would any thing have been wanting to them, if they had chosen to apply the term Homoousian to the three Subsistences. [His words are,..."(GREEK)" We have in the Bibl. Univers. of Le Clerc (Ann. 1688, p. 393) a passage cited from Porphyry, in which the term Trinity occurs. "Platon, dit Porphyre, a enseigne que l'essence divine peut s'entendre jusqu'a trois hypostases, &c...de sorte que c'est par l'Esprit qu'il faut commencer a conter la Trinite (GREEK), &c."  He has also shewn in the same work, that the terms Homoowian (GREEK), Eterousian (GREEK), Hypostasis  (GREEK), Essence  (GREEK), and others common to the Fathers, had been used much in the same sense by the Platonists. He has also given a good outline on the general subject now before us, which he concludes, by condemning our author as an Arian.]

We have in the next page (271) a citation from Porphyry stating, that Plato extended the Essence of the Deity as far as to three Subsistences; that the supreme God was (the chief) Good ; that after Him was the second, the Maker of the world; and the third, was the Soul of the world: (implying) that the Deity extended to (this) Soul [The words are: (GREEK)]. And the conclusion of Cyril upon this is, that, as no difference can subsist between those that are of the same nature ((GREEK) [As it is desirable fully to understand the Fathers when using the term (GREEK), with reference to the Deity, I think it right to give in this place their own manner of defining it. Athanasius and Cyril of Alexandria Speak thus of it: "(GREEK)" And Athanasius again, on the Trinity: (GREEK)" "Essentia communitatem notat; et si quid essentiae proprium est, id commune est personis, quae sub essentia sunt." See Suicer. Thes. Eccles. sub voce. Theodoret's reasoning on Plato's Epistles, &c. will afford some good exemplifications of the application of this. Gaisford's Edit. p. 87, seq.] it may be sufficient for the Christians to believe, as these Philosophers did, in a Divinity extended to three Subsistences, and hence to be mindful of the Trinity (so propounded).

Plato's Epinomis, and Epistle to Hermias, Erastus, and Coriscus, are then cited, (Book n. sectt. 27, 29 below), and commented upon, as is the passage from Numenius the Pythagorean (p. 272), and that from Plotinus (p. 273), which have also been cited by our author. In the last, the supreme Deity is termed the Most Perfect: the Second Cause the Mind, and the Image of God: and these are said (p. 274) to be the Generating and the Generated; to be one and inseparable, although distinct. In the former, the First God is, it is said, to be considered the Father of the Maker of the World. [(GREEK)] And the Second and Third God, as one. [GREEK]   To this Cyril objects as inconsistent, although he does not appear averse to the doctrine generally; which may be inferred from his stating (p. 273), that he finds the knowledge of the Holy Trinity among the wise men of the Greeks, as most closely connected and admitting of nothing intervening: that they say, these (Subsistences) are present with one another; and that the order which the Mind has to the First, the same in like manner has the Third or Soul, to the Mind which is (derived) from the First.  [GREEK] Where, as it should seem, no inferiority of nature in either could have been intended, although a distinction of order is insisted upon.

We have, in the next place, a description of the Spirit or Soul of the world also from Plotinus, (ib. p. 275), to the effect that it affords life to all, whether on the earth, in the air, or the heavens: that this formed the Sun, the great Heavens, this makes them to revolve; and, that being of a nature different from that of the things so formed, and moved, and to which it gives life, it is necessarily more honourable than they : these having been made, and being subject to destruction ; but it ever existing  [GREEK], &c. And, a little lower down, after matter much to the same effect, it is said, that this Spirit is like to the Father that generated it, both as to its Unity, and Ubiquity  [GREEK]. This Cyril affirms, points out the creative and enlivening energy of the Holy Ghost, which is in nature not diverse from that of the Father, or of the Son.  [GREEK] To this is added another extract from Plotinus, nearly to the same effect; to the weakness of the comparisons, instituted in which, Cyril objects: although he does not to the general doctrine taught; and, what is more to our purpose, maintains that no inferiority exists in the Persons.

This subject is touched upon by our author in his Praep. Evang. (Lib. xi. cap. xx. p. 541), where he tells us, that the Hebrew Oracles place the Holy Spirit third in order, with respect to the Father and the Son; and, in such a manner, lay down the Holy and thrice blessed Trinity, that by this Third Power all created nature is surpassed  [GREEK]. He then gives Plato's letter to Dionysius, which states the matter thus: about the King of all are all things, and His are all things, He too is the Author of all good things. But the Second (Cause) is about the things second; and the Third, about the third  [GREEK]. He remarks upon this, that those who undertake to explain the mind of the Philosopher, refer these things to the First, Second, and Third, Cause or Soul of the world, which they also determine to be a third God; but, he adds, the Sacred Scriptures place the Holy and blessed Trinity, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in the predicament of Principle, according to the things already given  [GREEK The sense and bearing of dp^ij, as applied by the Philosophers, is thus given by Tiiuseus Locrensis. (Theodoret. Edit. Gaisford, p. 101.) (GREEK) There is one ungenerated Principle of all things ; for, if it were generated, it would not then be Principle, but that (would be) Principle out of which it were generated. See also Suidas sub vocc.] It will be found that Theodoret has adopted reasoning on these passages, quite in unison with that of Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria, as just now noticed. And, as a very neat Edition of this portion of Theodoret's works, by Dr. Gaisford, is accessible to all, it is the less necessary I should cite much from it. This subject will be found discussed at p. 87. seq. of Dr. Gaisford's publication, as it will in Tom. iv. p. 498. B. of the Edition of 1642. The only question I shall now touch upon, is one which has been discussed and pronounced upon, in similar terms, by these three Fathers. I mean, the opinions expressed by Amelius on the first few verses of St. John's Gospel. (Praep. Evang. Lib. xi. cap. xix. p. 540. Cyril contra Julian. Lib. viii. p. 283. Theodoret. Edit. Gaisford, p. 92.)

The reasoning of Amelius on John i. 1, &c. is to this effect: This then was the Word, according to which,— ever existing,—the things in being were made, even as Heraclitus also deemed: and indeed, the Barbarian thinks it right to have placed Him in the order and dignity of Principle, and to be with God, and to be God: that by Him alone (singly) all things were made; in whom, that which was made became living, and life, and Being: that he descended into Body, put on flesh, and appeared as man: after which, he then also shewed the greatness of His nature; and being forthwith set free (by death), returned to the Deity, and was God, such as He was before He de­scended to the Body, the flesh, and the man. [The following is tlie text of Eusebius, which differs in a few particulars from that of Dr. Gaisford, and of Cyril. (GREEK) It certainly does seem, from the reasoning of Philo on the Logos, and from the Targumists, who use the term (HEBREW) (Word) in the same way, as well as from St. John's adoption of the term (GREEK), that this mode of viewing the Deity, with reference to the Divine Economy, had then got very considerable footing among the Jews,—from whose Scriptures it was, as I think, most probably taken at first. St. John's statement is moreover, that this Being "was made flesh, and dwelt among us:" adopting, apparently, the general belief on this subject as correct, but taking care to restrict it to the Person of our Lord.]—Which, according to the opinion of these three Fathers, truly sets forth the Divine character of our Lord. And I may here affirm that, if these Fathers (i.e. Cyril and Theodoret) cannot be justly charged with Arianism, because they have made this use of the Greek Philosophers, and have set to their seal, that the view which treats the Father as the First Cause, the Son as the Second, and the Holy Ghost as the Third, in the Holy and thrice blessed Trinity, does not tend to lower the Divine nature of either; neither can our author, who has only done the same thing, and this I think, in every case, with regard to the Divine Economy. It ought to be borne in mind too, these Fathers believed that the Philosophers universally took these notions from the Holy Scriptures, whether right or wrong signifies nothing to our argument. They held accordingly, that the statements so made conspired with revealed truth, and thence they cited them. For my own part, I believe they were right in so doing, as I can discover no other source, from which they could have possibly been taken. [See the Praep. Evang. Lib. xm. cap. xii. Clemens Alexand. ib. cap. xiii. Le Clerc, Bibl. Univers. Ann. 1688, p. 403, seq. Theodoret. ib. p. 91, seq. tells us that Plotinus, who wrote a book on the three Hypostases, Plutarch, Numenius, and others, of the same class, coming after the advent of our Lord, inserted many things of the Christian Theology in their works. Plotinus therefore and Numenius, explaining the mind of Plato, state that he spoke of three time-exceeding and eternal (Beings), the (chief) Good, the Mind, and the Soul of all; which, he goes on to say, we term the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. (GREEK)  I think it extremely likely, that the Text of the New Testament afforded these later Philosophers much new matter on this very abstruse subject, although that of the Old might have supplied quite as much as Plato and Philo were able to say upon it: nothing being more common in the East, even at this day, than the adoption of Christian opinions by the Idolaters.]

It is true Cyril has, as noticed above, occasionally expressed his dissatisfaction with certain modes of comparison instituted by the heathen Philosophers, whose opinions and expressions our author occasionally adopted : and of this, Viger and others have availed themselves, to his injury. But it is not with modes of expression merely that we have now to deal; it is, with these, also to ascertain as far as we can, the things discussed and positively intended. All must see that every sort of comparison, instituted with respect to the Deity, must be inadequate; and consequently, that if we endeavour to ascertain a writer's opinions, through a medium so faulty and insufficient, the result must be, we shall either deceive ourselves, or injure him. Our author has however, guarded himself abundantly against this again and again, declaring, that the nature of the Deity exceeds every effort of comparison or description ; whence it should seem, he intended to provide, that his opinions should not be judged of in a way so unlikely to do them justice. If he has adopted too much of the Platonic mode of reasoning, or entered too particularly into questions, on which later times have deemed it prudent to say little or nothing; these are things with which we have now nothing to do: all we have before us is, simply to ascertain as far as we can, what his views respecting the Deity positively were.—Having then, so far inquired into, and ascertained, his modes of thinking and stating his opinions, we may now proceed to examine them upon other grounds.

 

Section II.

On the Opinions of Eusebius, as deducible from the History of the Council of Nice.

We now come to consider the Letter of our .Author addressed to the Church of Caesarea, respecting the proceedings of the Council of Nice, particularly as this has been made one of the chief grounds of accusation against him.

The first thing we shall notice is, the profession of faith which he then offered to the Council [The Creed agreed upon at the Council, which is evidently based on this, as this was on others of a more ancient date, proceeds no farther than this place, with the addition of the Anathema. The whole formula will be found in Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. cap. xi. Socrat. Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. cap. viii. as also in the authorities mentioned by Bingham, Antiq. Book x. cap. iv. sect. 4. On the additional portions found in this Creed, as it now stands in our Prayer Books, see, ib. sect. 1G. seq. See also Jortin's Remarks on Eccl. Hist. Vol. n. Book in. p. 224—5.] , and which is thus given : "/ believe in one God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things visible and invisible ; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God, God of God, Light or Light, Life of Life, the only begotten Son, the First Born of every creature, begotten of God the Father before all ages, (or worlds,) and by whom all things were made : Who, for our salvation, became incarnate and conversant among men, and suffered, and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and shall come again in glory to judge the living and the dead. And I believe in one Holy Ghost."   "Each one of these," he adds, "we believe to be and exist: the Father, truly the Father ; and the Son, truly the Son; and the Holy Ghost, truly the Holy Ghost, even as our Lord, sending forth his apostles to preach, said: " Go (and) make Disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." [The Greek of which stands thus: (GREEK)  From the expression, (GREEK) as well as from what he here adds, viz. (GREEK) it must be evident, according to his mode of thinking and speaking of the Deity, that nothing short of the self-existing and independent nature of God could have been intended.]  'Concerning which things,' he goes on to say, 'we affirm that they thus are, and that we thus think, and that we thus formerly held, and that to this faith we will stand even to death, anathematizing every ungodly heresy. That we have thought these things from the heart and soul, as far as we have known ourselves ; that we now think and say them in truth, we attest before Almighty God, and our Lord Jesus Christ; having it in our power to shew, and by proofs even to satisfy you, that we thus believed and preached even in times past.'

It should seem, I think, that the profession here made, was made in all simplicity and good faith. I can conceive of no other motive, which could have induced the Father of Church history to act otherwise. And, if this may be relied on, it also must that he did not, on this occasion, make any profession, which he had not always made, and always taught, previous to this time. [It is positively asserted nevertheless, by Athanasius, that his belief was Arian up to the time of the Council of Nice. His words are these : (GREEK) "Qui cum prius suffragaretur Arianicae sectae, postea tamen Nicaeni Concilii decretis subscripsit." Vales. Life of Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Tom. i. p. mihi 24. Jortin however tells us (Remarks on Eccl. Hist. Vol. n. pp. 189, 270, Edit. 1767), that "Eusebius proposed a Creed, in which he avoided the word (GREEK), and anathematized every impious heresy, without specifying any."  Would it not have been more accurate to have said, that Eusebius did not insert the term Homoousion, as it does not appear to have had a place in any creed up to this time ? And ought not Jortin in fairness to have added, that, when this term was inserted, and had been discussed, Eusebius was one of those who gave it his warmest support ? Jortin's other remark is not worth noticing. Le Clerc makes no scruple here in charging Eusebius directly with duplicity: " Eusebe," says he (Bibl. Univers. Ann. 1688. p. 480.). "etoit un homme adroit, qui ne faisoit pas scrupule de souserire a des termes qui ne lui plaisoient pas, pourvu qu'il les put expliquer en un sens conforme a sa pensee." (See also p. 482), which has been re-echoed by Jortin. I will only ask here, What would Le Clerc and Jortin have thought of the writer who had treated them in this manner, after protestations such as those made by Eusebius ?]

Let us now examine this profession of Faith itself, with reference to the charge of Arianism so commonly brought against our author. Of his belief respecting the Father we need say nothing, because that has not been impeached. Of the Son then he says, He is God of God. Now, What could a writer, holding the notions of Plato, and the opinions which he himself has expressed on the character of Deity, have possibly meant by this God of God ? and which is interpreted, a little lower down, by 'begotten of the Father before all ages' or worlds, if it was not, that the Son was of the Divine Essence of the Father? [Even the Arians, if they could have allowed the generation of the Son, in Eusebius's sense, would not have hesitated to receive Him as being equally eternal and divine with the Father. See the Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus of Tyre. Theodoret. Hist. Eccles. Lib. i. cap. vi.] It should be observed too, we have here no delusive attempt to screen the notions of an Arian, under the substitution of one Greek verb for another, which might have the effect of deceiving the unwary [It was a very common practice with the Arians to substitute some part or other of the verb, (GREEK) for that of  (GREEK) of which both Valesius (Annot. in Hist. Eccl. Theodoret. Lib. n. cap. viii.) and Montfaucon (Coll. Nov. Patr. Tom. n. p. lix.) has deemed it necessary particularly to apprize their readers. Yet, it ought to be observed, that this distinction does not universally hold, even in the orthodox writers, particularly in the term  (GREEK);.]. Again, a little farther on, we have, 'The Father truly (really) the Father, and, in the same sense, 'The Son truly (really) the Son.' And the same must be true of the phrases, 'Light of Light, Life of Life,' which are followed, as before, by, " The only begotten Son, begotten of the Father," and so on ; for the purpose, apparently, of determining that the Son partakes of the very essence and nature of the Father.

To this Creed, our author informs us, no objection was offered by the Nicene Fathers. Some additions only were made, which,—as it appears to me,—added nothing of real moment to its meaning, as it respected either the mind of our Author, or the notions of the Arians. The whole differences, in the two forms, amount in the main to these: viz. for " The [ (GREEK) ] only begotten Son," we have " the only begotten Son of the Father, that is, of the Essence of the Father." And again, " God [ (GREEK) ] of very God, begotten not made, Homoousion with the Father (i.e. of the same substance &c), by Whom all things were made, both those in heaven and those on earth." Which, although added with the greatest propriety to a formula intended for common use, and therefore well calculated to guard general readers from mistakes, into which they might otherwise fall, really added nothing of which a philosophical mind could stand in need : the being begotten of God, God of God, Life of Life, and the like, implying to the fullest extent, all that the additional terms conveyed, as far as the question with the Arians was concerned. In another point of view, these additions were more important; that is, for the purpose of guarding believers generally against the heresy of Sabellius, of the Docetae, and others: and this the Fathers of the Council probably had in view, when they added them.

To this formula an anathema was added, evidently for the purpose of opposing Arianism. It runs thus: 'But those who say, there was a time when (the Son) was not, and that before He was begotten He had no being; and that He was made of things not existing, or out of any other subsistency or essence, alleging that the Son of God was subject to change or conversion, the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes.'' It may be observed, that the Anathema appended to the formula of Eusebius is here, as before, made more specific and comprehensive by the Council: although in effect, it reaches no heresy which might not have been brought under that of our author; it being the privilege of the Church to determine, what heresy was. In this respect, the prior formula was more full, as it would comprehend future heresies. Still the latter was better adapted to general use at that time.

 

It appears indeed, that our author did not allow these additions to pass without severe inquiry, as to their intention and bearing : and this was perhaps not improper in a matter of such great moment; and especially when a new term was to be introduced into the Creed of the Universal Church. And, What was the result ? His entire and conscientious concurrence, as noticed above. The terms, "being of the substance," were explained to indicate, the being of the Father but not as a part of the Father;" [(GREEK) He then adds,  (GREEK) "Hunc sensum ut nos quoque amplecteremur, aequum omnino videbatur, cum pia doctrina praedicet, Filium ex Patre esse, non tamen partem esse illius substantive. Quamobrem et nos huic notioni assensum prasbemus."] to which, as he tells us, he cordially agreed, not thinking it desirable to keep up a warfare, and to lose sight of the truth for the sake of words only. For the same reason he adds, he received the terms begotten not made; and because it was said, The term made applied commonly to the creatures, which had been made by the Son, to which He was in no respect similar, but was of an Essence far superior to every thing made : while the Scriptures too declared, that the Son was begotten of the Father, in a way neither to be conceived nor described by any creature.  'In the same way,' he adds, 'the investigation shewed the Son to be Homoousian (of the same substance) with the Father, not after any bodily sort, nor allied in any way to that of mortals; neither by division of the substance, nor by abscission, passion, conversion, or change, of the power of the Father: that the nature of the unbegotten Father was foreign to all these : that the being Homoousian with the Father, shewed that the Son bears no similitude whatsoever to the begotten creatures ; but that He was, in all respects, like the Father who begat: and, that He was of no other subsistency, (or Essence) but of that of the Father." [Hence will be seen how far from the whole truth Jortin's flippant account of this matter is, when he says, " His (Eusebius's) sense of consubstantial was, that the Son of God was not like created beings, but received his existence and his perfections from the Father in a different and in an ineffable manner" &c. Remarks on Eccl. Hist. Vol. n. Book in. p. 189. Ed. 1767. The Greek here will shew, that our author occasionally used the term  (GREEK)  in the same sense:  (GREEK) And also that he did believe, that the Son was of the Essence of the Father.] To which, our author adds, he agreed as being well propounded, since many ancient and famous Bishops and Writers had used the term Homoousian in the same sense. He then adds his consent to the Anathema subjoined, because the terms "out of nothing" u there was a time when he was not" and the like, were unscriptural, and had been the cause of much confusion in the Church : it being confessed by all, that the Son of God did exist before his generation in the flesh ; and that, prior to his actual generation, He existed in power ungeneratedly (detur venia verbo) in the Father. [This is a very remarkable passage, and one which ought not to be passed over without notice. It stands thus:  (GREEK)" JVani priusquam actu gigneretur, potentid erat in Patre, ingenita qnadam ratione: cum Pater semper sit pater, Rex item atque Servator." Here, it should be observed, Eusebius speaks of the abstract nature of the Deity, as it respected the monarchy,  (GREEK) as being ever immutably the same: and, although he uses the terms Father and Son,—which lie usually applies with reference to the Divine Economy  (GREEK) —it is for the purpose of affirming here, that each is equally eternal, and coessential. To this, Valesius has a strong objection, which he declares in these words in his notes, (p. mihi 12.) " In his Constantini sive Eusebii verbis error est manifestus. Neque enim verbum fuit in Patre potentia, priusquam actu gigneretur ex Patre. Primum enim actus et potentia non distinguuntur in Deo. Deinde ex eo sequeretur Verbum non fuisse ab aeterno. Nam et reliquas creaturie antequam actu crearentur, potentia erant in Deo," &c. I must confess I do not very clearly see the force of this objection. If the Schoolmen have said, that act and power are not to be considered as distinct things in the Deity, I do not perceive, either in what this is self-evident, or why the distinction is not to be made. Nor again, can I discover, in what way the creatures —here supposed to be created out of nothing,—could also be said to exist in the Deity in power before they were created, and hence be held to have been from eternity. This seems to me, to be judging of the opinions and reasoning of Eusebius, by principles not recognized until some centuries after his death. It appears to me, that Eusebius might have believed the Deity to have existed in His abstract character from all eternity immutably the same, and yet the Divine Essence to have comprehended the subsistences of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, all, each, and every, of these, vested with the power which is inseparable from Deity. But, however this might be, the passage most unequi­vocally affirms the eternity of the Son.]

One of the most important considerations, however, connected with this Letter is, that it appears to have been written to Arians. [So Theodoret, from whose Eccles. Hist. (Lib. i. cap. xi.) these extracts are taken, ib. whose words are:  (GREEK) "Eusebii Caesariensis epistolam, quam de fide scripsit, libet hoc loco inserere, ut qua? illorum" (i. e. Arianorum) "rabiem manifesto convincat. Hunc enim ut consentientem honorantes,

ejus scriptis apertc contradicunt. Epistolam autem scripsit ad Arianos quosdam, qui ilium, ut apparet, proditionis accusabant. Sed auctoris mentem melius verba ipsa declarant." Then follows this Epistle: which, be it remembered, Theodoret cites for the purpose of shewing that our author was not friendly to the views of the Arians. Socrates gives a similar account of this Epistle (Lib. r. cap. viii. p. mihi 23. D.) "  (GREEK) ..."et Caesariensibus suis conscriptam fidei formulam misit, vocem consubstantialis interpretatus, ne quis sinistram quidpiam de ipso suspicaretur, eo quod aliquantulum substitisset."

 

It has already been remarked, that Eusebius's hesitating to subscribe to the Homoousian doctrine, has been made matter of accusation against him [It is curious to observe how Athanasius meets this: "It is wonderful," says he, " that Eusebius of Casesarea of Palestine, although refusing the day before, yet the day after subscribed; and sent an Epistle to his Church, asserting that this was the Faith of the Church, and the tradition of the Fathers; and to all he openly shewed, that they were formerly in error, and had vainly contended against the truth." He goes on to say, that " although these were words which he was then ashamed to use, he nevertheless was willing to defend himself to the Church in this way, not denying the Homoousian doctrine, which must have been grievous to him: and that to carry this on, he ever after accused the Arians." His words are:  (GREEK) Vales. Life of Euseb. Hist. Eccles. Tom. i. It is greatly to be regretted that Athanasius did not here, as well as elsewhere, bring positive matter of accusation against our Author if he had any. The fact is, all he has advanced amounts to nothing beyond inferences, drawn from documents now in our hands. In one case, indeed, he cites a document not extant, and in this he accuses him of saying that Christ is not the true God. It is probable however, that all our Author there did was, to style the Father the only true God, as in John xvii. 3: Christ there speaking of Himself as a Minister in the Divine Economy; a thing which Eusebius has done again and again. Athanasius, no doubt, gave the real impressions which he felt; but it is to be feared that,—as it often happens among ourselves,—a fervent zeal to maintain the truth, was suffered to overcome his better judgment, and, with this, his Christian feelings as a controversialist.]. Now let it be supposed that this Letter was written to Arians within his own diocese; What, I ask, could be more proper or becoming in him, than to assure them that he did not assent to this doctrine until he had obtained a full and clear explanation as to its bearing ? that he had not been lightly carried away with the many, but had persevered to the last in refusing subscription, until the matter had been made out entirely to his satisfaction ? that he then subscribed, declaring that the term proposed (Homoousiari) was neither new, nor,—as then explained,—in any way differing from the teaching of the Divine Oracles; and then attesting in the presence of the Almighty, that he had in sincerity, and in the fullest conviction of his conscience, given his assent to this Creed ? Nor is this all, but he as fully assented to the Anathema also, which fell directly on the notions of the Arians; and called to their remembrance, that these were the doctrines which he had from the first taught and preached, and would to the last maintain among them. Let it also be borne in mind that Arius, as noticed above, had looked upon our Author as one of his adherents; and I think it must appear, that this Letter was both intended to undeceive them in this respect, and at the same time to lay before them his real, long entertained, and deliberately formed, convictions as to the proper Divinity of the Son of God, and as to the unscriptural and heretical notions of the Arian party. This, I think, is the course that any Churchman at the present day would pursue, when arguing with a Dissenter. He would endeavour to convince him,—if he dealt fairly with him,—that he had taken all due care to consider his opinions; that he did not rashly or hastily oppose his views: but that, after every necessary investigation made, he felt bound both to express, and to maintain, the opinions to which he had from the first been attached.

To this it may be added, that Theodoret, a writer of no mean attainments and judgment, devotes a whole chapter in his Ecclesiastical History (Lib. i. cap. xii.) [Yet, he is made (ib. Lib. v. cap. vii.) to enumerate " even Eusebius" of Caesarea among the abettors of Arianism! Is it not probable that this (GREEK) was added by some zealous scribe? for it is well known, that the margins of the MSS. are occasionally loaded with reproaches on his name vented by this race of men.] to the task of convincing the Arians, from the writings of our Eusebius, that they laboured under a great mistake in supposing, that he was attached to their opinions. This he does first, by shewing from his Epistle to the Church of Caesarea, that the term Homoousian was not of recent coinage: secondly, by appealing to the consent which he, with the Nicene Fathers, gave to the Creed then established : which Theodoret also affirms, he had also shewn in his Life of Constantine. And he concludes, that, although the Arians considered it no impiety to contradict other Fathers; to Eusebius, whom they usually treated with respect, it was but reasonable they should give credence when he affirmed, that the agreement of the Council was complete.

It will be quite sufficient to our purpose now, to add the testimony of Socrates [As this passage is important to our question, I give it in the Greek of Socrates, with the Latin translation of Valesius..."  (GREEK)."...Quid causae est cur nonnulli cum existiment Ariano dogmati consentire ? Falluntur etiam Ariani, qui ilium opinioni suae suffragari arhitrantur. Sed dicet fortasse aliquis, ilium Ariani dogmatis assertorem videri, propterea quod in libris suis crebro dicere solet, per Christum. Cui nos respondemus; et hac loquendi ratione, et aliis hujusmodi quae dispensationem humanitatis Jesu Christi designant, Ecclesiasticos Scriptores et consuevisse: et ante hos omnes Paulum Apostolum iisdem vocibus usum fuisse, qui tamen perversi dogmatis magister nunquam est existimatus." Sec on this use of the term Economy  (GREEK)  pp. xxix. xxx. note, above; and on a very extended application of it the "Capitula do Incamatione Domini" of Cyril of Alexandria, Script. Vet. Nov. Collect. Tom. vin. Rom. 1833, by Signor Mai, p. 59, seq. It. Athanasius, Collect. Nov. Patr. Tom. h. Paris, 170G. Ed. Montfauc. p. 6, seq. It should be borne in mind however, that our Author often speaks of the Economy  (GREEK), under which our Lord acted as a Minister, even before His incarnation, as already remarked.] to the same effect; and par­ticularly, as he has had sagacity enough to discover, on what grounds it was, that our Author had been charged with Arianism, and also to suggest, from the nature of the case, how the expressions of Eusebius ought to be viewed. Socrates then, in his Ecclesiastical History (Lib. ii. cap. xxi. p. mihi 103) argues to this effect: 'Since some have endeavoured to criminate Eusebius as Arianizing in his writings, I think it not unseasonable to say a few things about him. First, he was present at the Council of Nice, which defined the Homoousian doctrine; and with it he agreed.' His Life of Constantine is then, as before, cited, containing his own testimony to this fact. Socrates then asks, 'How is it, that some suppose him to have Arianized ; for the Arians err who imagine that he thinks with them ? One may say,' he adds, 'that in his writings he seems to Arianize, from his frequently saying through Christ. To such we answer,' continues he, 'Churchmen often use this expression, as they also do those other (similar ones), which have respect to the Economy of the manhood of our Saviour; and indeed, before all these, the Apostle used the (same) expressions, and he has never, on this account, been considered a Teacher of corrupt doctrine.' Socrates has, I think, here assigned the true cause of the alleged Arianism of our Author.—It should be remarked, that in this respect Eusebius has, perhaps more frequently than any other of the Fathers, spoken of our Lord under this point of view, without, at the same time, apprizing his Header of it: which might however well be excused in a mind so philosophical as his really was : while in others less so, it would easily be mistaken for heterodoxy. Socrates proceeds; 'Hear [This is taken by Socrates (Hist. Eccl. ib.) from our Author's controversy with Marcellus, which we shall notice more particularly in our next section. As the place is important, I give the original:  (GREEK) I do not think much importance can be attached after this, and similar statements made by our Author, to the charge brought against him in the sixth act of the seventh OEcumenical Council, (cited by Valesius, Life of Euseb.) viz. that Christ was a perfect creature of God, and unlike any other creature: "ereaturam Dei perfectam, sed non sieut unam ex creaturis." Which has evidently been taken from the Letter of Eusebius of Nicomedia to Paulinus Bishop of Tyre: where it is said of the Son:— (GREEK) "ad perfectam tamen similitudinem naturae virtutisque factoris sui conditum," &c. Our Author's assertions are, that the Son is of the Essence of the Father, &c. as cited above from his Letter.]  what Eusebius says, when Arius affirms that the Son of God is but a mere creature: He alone and no other is, and is named, the only-begotten Son of God ; whence one may justly reprehend those who dare to affirm that He is a creature, made out of nothing like other creatures. For, How can He then be the Son ? How the only-begotten of God, who is characterized as of the same nature with the creatures, as one of the many that have been made, and as partaking of a common creation with them, out of nothing? But, the Divine Oracles do not thus teach of Him.' And, a little lower down, 'That which is made out of nothing, cannot be truly the Son of God; nor indeed can any other made thing. But He, who is truly the Son of God, He who is begotten of God as of a Father, is justly named the Only-begotten and Beloved of the Father. And thus indeed, must He also be God. For what,' adds he, 'is that which is

begotten of God, but that which is assimilated to Him (as) the Generator?" It should be remembered, that our Author reasons here as a Platonist, holding, that whatever had independent existence as opposed to creation, could be nothing less than Deity; as must every thing, which is said to be generated of Deity, necessarily partake of the Divine Essence.

 

As far therefore, as the Council of Nice is concerned, there appears to be no good reason, either for suspecting the sincerity of our Author; or for supposing that, either then, or at any previous time, he really favoured the views of the Arians. Whether his reasoning was good or bad, or whether he talked at one time too much like a Platonist, at another, too much like a Theologian, for general readers, or not, is not now the question. I will say here, that, taking his reasoning as it ought to be taken, as resulting from his own modes of thinking and of expression, I may perhaps conclude, that, so far, there appears to be no good grounds either for suspecting his sincerity, or his orthodoxy. It should be observed too, that, of all the testimonies against him, collected from the Fathers of the Church and others by Valesius, not so much as one is grounded on any thing better than inference, and this drawn, as I think, from narrow and partial views of his conduct and writings. In one instance indeed, he is accused with having sacrificed to idols during the persecutions : but here also, it will be found upon inquiry, this rests on grounds no better than those of conjecture. [As cited by Valesius, ib.]

Section III.

 

On the Opinions of Eusebius as discoverable in his Controversy with Marcellus.

Having considered some of the leading modes of thinking and of expressing himself adopted by our Author, and examined these in some of their details as connected with the Council of Nice; it is now my intention to extend this inquiry to a few particulars taken from his controversy with Marcellus [A very good account of him, and of this controversy, will be found in Cave's Hist. Liter. Tom. i. p. 152. Edit. 1680. He was Bishop of Aneyra in Galatia; and, according to Socrates, (Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. xxxvi.) he fell, in combating the opinions of the Arians, into the opposite extreme, Sabellianism. And this, I think, is obvious enough from the extracts given by Eusebius from his writings. The Council of Jerusalem, having considered this question, ordered him to amend his opinions, and to bum his books. This he promised but neglected to do, and was accordingly deposed by that of Constantinople. He then betook himself to Rome, and laid his case before Pope Julius, declaring that his writings had been misunderstood and misapplied by his accusers. Upon this the Pope received him into communion, as also did the Council of Sardica, and restored him to his Bishoprick. It is probably to be ascribed to this circumstance, that Roman Catholic writers are often found among his zealous supporters, and that Montfaucon undertook an elaborate, but,—to my mind,—a most unsatisfactory, defence of him; which will be found prefixed to his edition of our Author's Commentary on the Psalms, p. i-i. iii. seq.], both because controversy has usually the effect of laying open the minds of those engaged in it, to a greater degree than any thing else, on the questions at issue; and also of affording a good opportunity to judge, in what way the several disputants interpreted the documents on which they undertook to argue.

This controversy will, in both these respects, afford us considerable assistance towards ascertaining the truth in the question before us ; and particularly in the latter case, as it will bring before us certain passages of Scripture, which could not have failed to call forth the Arian notions of our Author, if indeed he entertained such. An extract from this controversy has been noticed above, as adduced by Socrates in defence of our Author. The first we shall here touch upon, has also been adduced by him for the same purpose; and, as the Scripture which it cites, seems to speak of our Lord as a created being, it will afford us a good opportunity of seeing how Eusebius dealt with it.

The passage here adduced is Prov. viii. 22, which, according to the Septuagint, reads, "The Lord created me the beginning of his ways." On which our Author says, 'If one find it once said in the Scripture, The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works, it is necessary to observe the mind of the passage, which,' says he,  'I will shortly do; not, like Marcellus, for the purpose of beating down a principal doctrine of the Church, from one mere expression.' [Socrates, Mist. Keel. Lib. 11. cap. xxi.] Socrates then tells us, that Eusebius teaches us in his Third Book [Lib. in. cap. ii. p. 150 D.] (against Marcellus,) how the term created ought to be taken here : which he does to this effect. -- 'The terms, The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works are to be considered as consequent on what precedes ; and, if he says that Himself was created, He could not say these things, as implying that He came forth from nothing into existence; nor, that He was, like the other creatures, made out of nothing: which some have erroneously understood: but, as subsisting  (GREEK) indeed, and Living  (GREEK), and Preexisting  (GREEK), and previously having a Being  (GREEK), before the constitution of the whole world; appointed by His own Father and Lord to rule over all things: hence the term He created  (GREEK) was said for, He appointed  (GREEK), or, He established  (GREEK).' We then have several passages [1 Pet. ii. 13. Amos iv. 13. Ps. l. 11 (Septtiagint.) Eph. ii. 15; iv. 24. Theodoret Dialog. 1. advers. Anomaeos. Tom. v. p. 201: takes this passage in the Proverbs, as referring to the Incarnation of our Lord ; the past tense in, lie created (GREEK) being used to imply the thing enounced as present to the Divine mind, as in, "They pierced my hands and my feet, &c." which, he goes on to say, points out " the mystery hidden from the foundation of the world." Eph. iii. 5. John viii. 57, 58, &c. But here I think Eusebius is right, and Theodoret wrong, for this reason; the passage in Proverbs is evidently an imitation of a place in Job, viz. chap. xl,. 19: where the First of the ways of God, cannot refer to the animal there mentioned, but to the Wisdom of God, had in view: and this Wisdom Solomon evidently had before him, which the Fathers generally refer to Christ. See my translation of the place with the notes. An interpretation of this passage in the Proverbs, not unlike that of Eusebius, was given by Eustathius of Antioch; and it has been preserved by Theodoret, Hist. Eccl. Lib. i. cap. vii.] pointed out, in which creature, or created, signifies something appointed, constituted, or the like ; but not created out of nothing; and the conclusion is, that this text has respect to the constituting of Christ by the Father, the Ruler of all things. We have nothing here therefore, implying in any way, either that our Lord was a creature, or that He was, as to His Divine Essence, in any respect inferior to the Father; but only as it respected the office of a Minister in the Divine Economy, which He took upon himself to hold and to fulfil.

 

But, that we may enter the more fully into our Author's mind, we must see how he viewed the opinions of his opponent, whose object was—let it be borne in mind,—to prove that he was an Arian. These Eusebius has affirmed were Sabellian. He then gives the following from Marcellus;

[Lib. it. cap. i. contra Marcellum, p. 32. A. it. p. 35. B. This is stated in substance by Montfaucon (Collect. Nov. Patr. Tom. n. cap. ii. p. liii. seq.) to which are added similar statements from Basil, Chrysostom, and Theodoret; to which Epiphanius, and Athanasius have, to a certain extent, expressed their agreement. In cap. iii. ib. Montfaucon takes up the defence of Marcellus. His first assertion is, that Marcellus had done only as many Catholics had, who maintained that the (GREEK), Essence, or  (GREEK), Hypostasis of the Father and the Word were one and the same: while Eusebius held, that these were separate, and unequal : which is not true ! A little lower down he tells us that Marcellus, acting against the Sabellians, could not but have held that the Word was distinct from the Father. But this is also incorrect. Marcellus was not here writing against the Sabellians, but against the Arians, as he also shews (ib. capp. i. iii.). He next cites Marcellus saying, that the Word of God, was not a word so called abusively, or figuratively,  (GREEK), but was truly a word  (GREEK): which he tells us means, that the Word was truly self-existing, "verbum exstitisse vere et per se." I more than doubt this. All Marcellus says seems to me to be, that the Word, in his mind, implied nothing whatever in a sense not  (GREEK) strictly its own, but really and verily a word, such as he had before described, resting unenounced in the mind of the Father. And this Montfaucon next adduces, declaring that it involves nothing uncatholic, but what agreed with John i. 1. And, what should exceed all wonder, he then tells us, that Athanasius and others read here,  (GREEK): but, that certain Fathers, to avoid the usages of the followers of Marcellus (Marcelliani), and of others, rejected the terms  (GREEK). One would hardly have expected this in a defence of the same Marcellus ! Montfaucon thinks in the next place, that he finds a real distinction between the Father and the Son, in Marcellus's citing, "Let us make man," &c. But, Does this necessarily follow, in a writer reasoning as Marcellus does? It is doubtful at best. His next argument (iii.) amounts to nothing whatever. In page lx. it is insinuated that Eusebius, with the Arians generally, considered Christ as a created being: which is not true! And in the last place, he allows that Marcellus was scarcely excusable, believing that he had so written his book, that he could easily make that look well, which was in itself really ill.—And, upon the whole, I do not think that Marcellus, were he to appear again, would thank Montfaucon for this defence."]

"That there is not, nor did there (ever) preexist, nor has there at any time existed, a Son of God before his being brought forth by the Virgin: but that he was only a word coexisting with the Father, being eternally with Him, and united, just as an unspoken word might be with man.  For he (Marcellus) uses this example ; that a word was within God himself, sometimes at rest, sometimes operating significantly, but proceeding forth by the sole act of the Father? After stating some of his objections to this, he proceeds, in his second chapter (ib.) to refute these opinions upon statements taken from the work (now lost) of Marcellus himself.

—It is of no concern to us now, whether Eusebius was right or wrong in his statements of the notions of Marcellus: all we wish to ascertain is, How he defended himself against the charges of Arianism brought against him by this writer. In the fourth chapter then, of his first Book, Marcellus attacks several writers on their opinions respecting the Son, and among these Eusebius.  I shall notice only one instance of his reasoning against Asterius [Who was, according to Socrates, a Sophist of Cappadocia who wrote in favour of the Arian party.], and then proceed to those advanced against Eusebius himself. And this I notice merely to shew, how our Author meets it. It was the object of Marcellus to prove here (p. 21. D.) that the assertions of Asterius, affirming that Christ was God, and at the same time, the image of God, could not hold. His words are, 'How can He, who was born both God and Lord, as he (Asterius) has presumed, possibly be the Image of God ? For, the Image of God is one thing, and God another; so that if the Image be not Lord, neither is it God, but the Image of God and Lord; but, if it be truly God and Lord, it cannot be the Image of Lord and of God." [The words of Marcellus are: "(GREEK)"] This, our Author, affirms is most blindly said : Marcellus not being aware, that a Son endued with a soul might be said to be the Image of His own Father, since He would be in all respects like Him. He then cites Gen. v. 3, to shew, [Also Col. iii. 10. Wisd. vii. 20.] that this was justified by the usage of Scripture. He then quotes the Apostle (Philip, ii. 6, 7), thus speaking on the Divinity of the Son, (GREEK.) "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made himself of no reputation." [Lit. Emptied Himself,  (GREEK) A passage admirably calculated to express the mind of Eusebius, both as to the Divinity, and the Humiliation of the Son.] and again, (Heb. i. .3) "Who being the brightness of His glory, and the express image of His person" &c. evidently intending to urge the Divine Nature of our Lord on the one hand, and his voluntary humiliation in taking the office of a ministering servant on the other, in the work of the Divine Economy. Marcellus next charges Narcissus and Eusebius (ib. p. 25. C.) with holding, that there were Two, and even Three (different) Essences [(GREEK)... i.e. in answer to the question whether he believed two substances to exist in the Deity, "he answers three."—And it should be remembered here, as noticed above, (p. xxxii.) that substance, is to be taken in the sense of (GREEK), subsistence or person.] (in the Deity),... daring to separate the Word of God, and naming it another God, in substance and power different from the Father. He then classes our author with Valentinus, Hermes, Narcissus, Plato, and Marcion (ib. p. 26. A). To this, and some subsequent matter, Eusebius thought it sufficient to answer, that his words were those of the Apostle, out of which his opponent had fabricated two substances and two Gods: [Ib. p. 27. A.  (GREEK) "Nota mihi autem quanto cum felle et aeerbitate convitictur ei, qui nihil prorsus in scripts retulit, praetor nuda ipsissimaque Apostoli verba, idque etiam ipso fatente accusatore. Et adhue qui fatetur hoe in loco Eusebium duos Deos, profiteri, ut puta qui cum Patre suo, una et Filium quoque Denm asrnoscat esse."] and who had, a little lower down, also charged him from the words of the same Apostle, with affirming that Christ was a mere man. I may remark here, If our Author did affirm, either directly or indirectly, that there were two, or three, distinct Essences in the Deity, he could not have been an abettor of Arius. It is sufficiently evident however, that he only spoke of the Hypostases or Subsistences, believed to exist in the Holy Trinity, as we shall presently see. But, what is most important here is, Marcellus bears testimony to the fact, that our Author held the Godhead of the Son, and the existence of the Holy Trinity. His method of stating this, resulted solely from his own Sabellian views of the subject. [See also ib. p. 20.]

 

Paulinus is next charged (ib. p. 27. C.) with 'making Christ a God Second in order, and begotten after the human manner;' also with 'making Him a creature, and with setting up many gods" : and in this category is our Eusebius included, with the addition, that he had affirmed, not only that there was one only God, but that the true God was one only. We have nothing to do here with the opinions of Paulinus: the extract is given, because the same things are charged upon our Author. And, What do they amount to? Why, that Christ was considered by him as God, holding a secondary place: that is, as we have already seen, 'thinking it not robbery to be equal with God, nevertheless taking upon himself the form of a servant.' Then again, that he had set up many gods : which is only Marcellus's way of designating the Persons of the Holy Trinity: and the same may be said of his gloss on the term begotten. But, on his affirming that Eusebius made God (the Father) the only true God, Eusebius himself declares, that if he had adduced his words, he would have known that he had affirmed no such thing; but, that it was the Saviour who had said, " that they might know thee the only true God." [His words are:  (GREEK) (John xvii. 3.)]

Now, as our Author's interpretation of this last passage is all-important to this question, we cannot do better perhaps than adduce it. It is given considerably in detail in his "Eclogae Prophetarum," lately published at Oxford by Dr. Gaisford, (pp. 43—6) where we are told that Jehovah sustained under the Old Testament, the same office of Person sent, as our Lord does under the New. The terms "only true God" could not therefore, have been intended to deny the Deity of the Son, or in any way to exclude Him from a participation in the supreme Godhead, unless this could also be said of Jehovah himself. In our Author's Commentary on the Psalms [On Psalm lxxxv. according to the Septuagint (p. 534. B.) vr. 10. "Thou art God alone."  (GREEK) Our Author says:  (GREEK). "Illud auteni, selus, a Salvatove quoque nostro ad I'atrem dictum fuit in illo, Ut cognosent te solitm verum Deum. Quoniam vero paternar deitatis particeps est Filius, cum sit ejusdem regni consors, utpote unigenitus filius, Dei Verbum, et Dei Sapientia; jure et ipse praesenti theologiae accenseatur qua haee docemur, inter multos illos qui dii vocantur non esse quempiam similem Deo universorum: nam in uno solo Unigenito ejus Verbo, Patris similitudo servatur," &c.] however, this passage is treated in a more summary and positive manner, to this effect. 'The term alone is used even by our Lord of the Father, in' "that they might know thee the only true God."  'For, since the Son is a partaker in the Godhead of the Father, participating in the same Rule, inasmuch as He is the only-begotten Son and Word of God, and the Wisdom of God, it is but right that He should be recounted in the Theology (doctrine respecting God) now before us; which teaches, that there is not one among the many that are named Gods, like the God who is over all: but, in His one only-begotten Word, is the likeness of the Father preserved.'—It must be obvious I think from this, that, when our Author spoke of the God who is above all, the God of all, and the only true God, there could have been no intention on his part, either to deny the Divinity of the Son, or to exclude Him in any way from partaking in that of the Father. (Ib. p. 28. C.) The next charge of Marcellus is, that Eusebius had made Christ a mere man : but here happily, he has adduced the words of our Author; which expressly state, that " there is one Mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;" [1 Tim. ii. 5.  (GREEK) Marcellus adds,  (GREEK) "Mediatorem quoque unum Dei atque hominum constitnit hominem Jesum Christum." He adds, "Quod si ergo hominem ideo ilium appellct, quod respiceret eam" (solam) "quae est secundum carnem, oeconomiam, non potest fieri quin simul profiteutur ille, spem se nullam in eo collocari," &c. Jer. xvii. 5 is then cited. It is scarcely possible, Marcellus could not have understood what Eusebius meant here, by the Economy according to the flesh. He probably thought, as I suspect many others have done, that it would suit his purpose better to disregard this wholly. It should be observed, that the Fathers often use the term Monarchy, (GREEK). p. xxxi. above, when speaking of the universal rule of God in the abstract, in contradistinction to that of Economy; which, as applying to the work of redemption, views the Holy Trinity as comprehending the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, with reference to the declarations of Scripture. So Niceph. quoted by Suicer. Thes. Eccl. sub voce. " (GREEK) "Units Deus apud nos adoratur: tres quidem persona; secundum hypostasis, unus vero Deus secundum essentiam: et unus apud nos honoratur Deus, non plures dii." See also the other examples supplied by Suicer, which will abundantly shew, that the Monarchy and Economy, thus used, are opposed to one another.] and this, Marcellus himself here allows, he had spoken solely with reference to the Divine Economy. If then Eusebius had used the words of Scripture, he had very prudently guarded himself against the imputation, that he intended by them to lower the Divine nature of the Son; which the introduction of the term Economy effectually did. I must be allowed to remark here, that it will be difficult to discover what could have induced Marcellus to persevere in a charge like this, when he must have seen that the passage cited was Holy Scripture, and that Eusebius had given a sufficient clue to his view of its meaning; unless indeed the Sabellianism, [Cyril of Alexandria directly charges Marcellus with being a Sabellian—just as our Author docs—(Script. Vet. Nov. Coll.  Tom. vm. p. 53), where he says;  (GREEK)  The Trinity too is acknowledged (as existing), not in

mere names, hut in the Persons (or subsistences); for we do not say One three-named (Being), according to the contraction and confusion (in system) of Sabellius, Photinus, and Marcellus, &c.] with which our Author, with others, has charged Him, was the cause of it.

 

Having so far examined our Author's views in this place, let us now pass on to his Third Book on the Ecclesiastical Theology, also written against Marcellus. We have here then, (cap. iv. p. 168) Marcellus arguing on the doctrine of the Holy Ghost, more particularly as held by our Author [And he also allows the consequences contended for by our Author, would be good, provided he could allow his premises which s