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". 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,' "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 3.

2 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. II. Book ш. p. 189. Ed. 1767. The Greek here will shew, that our author occasionally used the term ὑπόστασις and οὐσία, in the same sense: “ καὶ μὴ εἶναι ἐξ ἑτέρας τινὸς ὑποστάσεώς τε καὶ οὐσίας, ἀλλ ̓ ἐκ TĤS TOÙ TATρÓs.” And also that he did believe, that the Son was of the Essence of the Father.

دو

* This is a very remarkable passage, and one which ought not to be passed over without notice. It stands thus: "ẻπel kai πρiv ἐνεργείᾳ γενηθῆναι, δυνάμει ἦν ἐν τῷ πατρὶ ἀγεννήτως, ὄντος τοῦ πατρὸς, ὡς καὶ βασιλέως ἀεὶ, καὶ σωτῆρος, καὶ δυνάμει πάντα ὄντος ἀεί τε καὶ κατὰ τὰ αὐτὰ, καὶ ὡσαύτως ἔχοντος.” "Nam priusquam actu gigneretur, potentiâ erat in Patre, ingenita quadam 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, (Kaтà Tηv povaρxíav) as being ever immutably

the

One of the most important considerations, however, connected with this Letter is, that it appears to have been written to Arians'. It has already been remarked, that

the same: and, although he uses the terms Father and Son,-which he usually applies with reference to the Divine Economy (n vikovoμía) -it is for the purpose of affirming here, that each is equally eternal, and coëssential. 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 potentiâ, priusquam actu gigneretur ex Patre. Primum enim actus et potentia non distinguuntur in Deo. Deinde ex eo sequeretur Verbum non fuisse ab æterno. Nam et reliquæ creaturæ antequam actu crearentur, potentiâ 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.

1 So Theodoret, from whose Eccles. Hist. (Lib. 1. cap. xi.) these extracts are taken, ib. whose words are: Εὐσεβίου τοῦ καισαρέως ἐπιστολὴν, ἣν περὶ τῆς πίστεως ἔγραψεν, ἐνθείναι βούλομαι τῇ συγγραφῇ, τῆς τούτων λύττης ἔλεγχον ἔχουσαν ἐναργῆ. τοῦτον γὰρ γεραίροντες ὡς ὁμόφρονα, τοῖς ὑπὸ τούτου γραφεῖσιν ἄντικρυς ἀντιλέγουσιν· γέγραφε δὲ τὴν ἐπιστολὴν πρός τινας τὰ Αρείου φρονοῦντας, προδοσίαν ὡς εἰκὸς ἐγκαλοῦντας αὐτῷ, δηλοῖ δὲ ἄμεινον τὰ γεγραμμένα τὸν τοῦ γεγραφότος σκοπόν.” "Eusebii Cæsariensis epistolam, quam de fide scripsit, libet hoc loco inserere, ut quæ illorum" (i. e. Arianorum) "rabiem manifestè convincat. Hunc enim ut consentientem honorantes, ejus scriptis apertè contradicunt. Epistolam autem scripsit ad Arianos quosdam, qui illum, ut apparet, proditionis accusabant. Sed auctoris mentem meliùs 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. 1. cap. viii. p. mihi 23. D.) “ καὶ τῷ ὑπ' αὐτὸν λαῷ ἔγγραφον τὸν ὅρον τῆς

Eusebius's hesitating to subscribe to the Homoousian doctrine, has been made matter of accusation against him. 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

πίστεως διεπέμψατο (Εὐσέβιος ὁ τοῦ παμφίλου), τὴν τοῦ ὁμοουσίου λέξιν ἑρμηνεύσας, ἵνα μὴ δὲ ὅλως τὶς ὑπόνοιαν ἀνθ' ὧν ἐπέστησεν ἔχῃ περὶ αὐτοῦ.”..." et Cæsariensibus suis conscriptam fdei formulam misit, vocem consubstantialis interpretatus, ne quis sinistram quidpiam de ipso suspicaretur, eo quod aliquantulum substitisset."

* It is curious to observe how Athanasius meets this: "It is wonderful,” says he, “ that Eusebius of Casarea 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: “ καὶ τόγε παράδοξον, Εὐσέβιος ὁ ἀπὸ καισαρείας τῆς παλαιστίνης, καί τοι πρὸ μιᾶς ἀρνούμενος, ὅμως ὕστε ρον ὑπογράψας, ἐπέστειλε τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ ἑαυτοῦ, λέγων εἶναι τῆς ἐκκλησίας τὴν πίστιν, καὶ τῶν πατέρων τὴν παράδοσιν πᾶσί τε φανερῶς ἔδειξεν, ὅτι πρότερον ἐσφάλλοντο, καὶ μάτην ἐφιλονείκουν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν· εἰ γὰρ καὶ ἠσχύνθη τότε ταύταις ταῖς λέξεσι γράψαι, καὶ ὡς ἠθέλησεν αὐτὸς ἀπελογήσατο τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ, ἀλλάγε διὰ τῆς ἐπιστολῆς τὸ ὁμοούσιον,...μὴ ἀρνησάμενος φανερῶς τοῦτο σημᾶναι βούλεται, καὶ πέπονθέ τι δεινόν. ὡς γὰρ ἀπολογούμενος κατεγόρησε λοιπὸν τῶν ἀρειανῶν.” 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.

d

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 conjecture1.

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, both because controversy has usually the

1 As cited by Valesius, ib.

2 A very good account of him, and of this controversy, will be found in Cave's Hist. Liter. Tom. I. p. 152. Edit. 1688. He was Bishop of Ancyra in Galatia; and, according to Socrates, (Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1. 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 burn 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

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 3. Socrates then tells us, that Eusebius teaches us in his Third Book (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 Him

4

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. Li. Lii. seq.

3 Socrates, Hist. Eccl. Lib. 1. cap. xxi.

* Lib. I. cap. ii. p. 150 D.