Eusebius on the Trinity Part 1

In this series of posts I will quoting from Against Marcellus and On Ecclesiastical Theology (Fathers of the Church Patristic Series), translated by Kelley McCarthy Spoerl & Markus Vinzent, and published by The Catholic University of America Press in 2017. It is the refutation of Eusebius of Caesarea against the heretic Marcellus.

The aim of citing this work is to show that Eusebius was a Trinitarian who affirmed that the Son and the Holy Spirit are uncreated Divine Hypostases (Persons). There have been those who have either misunderstood or deliberately misrepresented Eusebius’s statements as implying that he was a semi-Arian, which is the furthest thing away from the truth, as a careful examination of this specific work demonstrates.

The context of Eusebius’ refutation was Marcellus’s claims that God’s Word was not a distinct Person/Hypostasis with God, but rather was identical to God and only became rational when it took on human flesh and became the man Jesus. Marcellus thought that the Word was eternal in the sense of it being one and the same as God the Father. Marcellus also believed that the Word would return to its former state after the end of the age when the Son would subject himself to God. This is why Eusebius repeatedly charged Marcellus of being a follower of Sabellius, an earlier heretic who taught that Jesus is the human incarnation of the Father himself.

It was in respect to these teachings that Eusebius rejected that the Son is eternal, not because he thought that he was creature, but because of the way Marcellus understood it. Marcellus used this term to deny any personal differentiation between God and his Word, which is the reason why Eusebius took issue with it.

Eusebius affirmed the monarchy of the Father, which meant that the Father alone is unbegotten and is the Source without source. Eusebius argued that in order for the Son to be truly distinct from the Father he had to be begotten, otherwise there would be no real differentiation between them. The same logic applies to the Spirit who must have been spirated by the Father in order for him to be truly different and distinct from both the Father and the Son.

That Eusebius believed the Son and the Spirit were not creatures that God brought into being, or produced from things created, can easily be demonstrated by what he writes throughout his response. I give a few examples here to illustrate this point:  

“... while on the other hand, the Church of Christ is proud to say with all candor, “We have one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and (2) one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.”²² But when she says “through whom are all things,” she acknowledges that he is BEFORE ALL THINGS.”

“... but again, by means of his ineffable and incomprehensible power he brought into existence FROM NOTHING the being⁵¹ of all creatures. Therefore, then, if he made all things by means that are ineffable and unfathomable to us, why, then, should it be controversial if we say that no passion has occurred within him in the begetting of the Son, as there is in the generation of mortal animals, because [the begetting of the Son] took place BEYONG ALL THINGS AND BEFORE ALL THINGS, in a way completely unlike things commonly acknowledged to be mortal by nature, but rather in the manner that is known to him alone?”

“Thus the Word, that is to say the only-begotten Son, was with God, his own Father; he coexisted with him and (15) WAS ALWAYS AND EVERYWHERE PRESENT WITH HIM.”

With the foregoing in view, I now proceed to the citations themselves. All emphasis will be mine.

[7] (53) If he [Marcellus] were to say that these [views of his] were taken from the New Testament, it will be said to him that even the statement “In the beginning was the Word”²⁶¹ came from no other source than from it. Well then, one and the same gospel and the same evangelist, having said he was Word, also ascribed to him all the remaining [titles].

[8] (54) And even Paul the divine Apostle, who says, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things,”²⁶² clearly speaks of the Son of God, “through whom all things were made,” before his coming in the flesh, not as “Word,” but as “Lord,” “Jesus,” and “Christ.” But if, according to Marcellus, God and the Word in him were one and the same, it would have been sufficient for the Apostle to declare, “for us there is one God, (55) the Father, from whom are all things.” For the thought made full sense, and the statement was complete in itself because it described God as maker of the universe. But even a Jew could say this. But the herald of the Church teaches us that in addition to the first clause [of his statement] we should (56) also not be ignorant of the second. And what was this? “And one Lord Jesus Christ.” For this reason he adds the second statement, saying next, “For us (for even if not for all, but for us, he says)²⁶³ there is one Lord Jesus Christ.” For what reason after the “one God” does this man also present “for us there is one Lord,” saying in addition “through whom are all things”? For since “all things were made through him,” it is fitting for us who have come to this conviction, to believe that he is Lord (57) of the universe after the God who is over all. And that he [Paul] did not say this regarding the flesh, but concerning God the Word, is clear from the addition of “through whom are all things.” For he says, “For us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things.” This indeed was also said about the light and the pre-existent Word. Therefore, Jesus Christ was himself the light and the Word “through whom all things” came into existence, but not the flesh. For it would have been totally incoherent for him [Paul] to say “through whom are all things” about the flesh.²⁶⁴

[9] (58) The same Paul knows to call the Son of God who pre-existed the flesh “Christ,” in the same way as he addresses him as “rock,” in the remarks he wrote concerning those who sojourned in the desert with Moses, saying, “For they drank from the spiritual rock that followed them, and the rock was Christ”;²⁶⁵ and the same point is confirmed after other statements when he claims, “We must not put Christ to the test, as some of them did (59) and were destroyed by serpents.”²⁶⁶ And he reiterates this same point once more, saying, “By faith Moses, when he was grown up, refused to be called ‘Son of Pharaoh’s daughter.’ ... He considered abuse suffered for Christ greater wealth than the treasures of Egypt.”²⁶⁷ He reveals this still further in the clearest fashion in those remarks in which he declares, “Have this mind among yourselves, which was also in Christ, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied himself, having taken the form of a slave, ... (60) and being found in human form.”²⁶⁸

You see altogether that before emptying himself and taking the form of a slave, he existed and pre-existed and existed “in the form of God.” And who was this? None other than Jesus Christ.

Therefore, God the Word himself was Jesus Christ even before (61) assuming the flesh. For one must listen carefully to the divine Apostle when he says, “Have this mind among yourselves which was also in Christ,” and when he makes quite clear in the following who this Jesus Christ then was, in those additional remarks in which he says, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied himself, having taken the form of a slave.”²⁶⁹ (62) Thus could such a statement apply to the flesh? Is it suitable to say the words “who” and “existed” concerning the flesh? Did the flesh “empty himself, having taken on the form of a slave”? But this is ridiculous.

Come then, let us examine in what sense it was said, “Who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied himself.” If, then, the Word was without existence,²⁷⁰ in no way subsisting outside of God, but being within him, at one time in rest and silence (63) and at another in activity, how was he also in the form of God, since as power for God he was himself “God”?²⁷¹ And how did he “not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at,” being himself God? How did he “humble himself, becoming obedient”²⁷² to the Father? For being obedient, one [person] to another, would have to be (64) indicative of two persons.²⁷³

And since Marcellus has used the word within men as an image, one should inquire if it is possible to apply the statement²⁷⁴ to the human word: “who being in the form of man, did not count equality with man a thing to be grasped at, but emptied himself, becoming obedient to man.” And how could the word that is by nature in man, do these things, being one and the same with the man? Consequently “the one who was in the form of God” will not be a mere word that is non-subsistent²⁷⁵ but truly an only-begotten Son of God, who “did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at, but emptied himself, having taken the form of a slave,” whom the divine Apostle also called Jesus Christ, knowing correctly that he pre-existed the flesh.

[10] (65) In addition to these [titles], the same Apostle called him a “Mediator of God,” having said that the law of Moses was given into his hand, in that passage where he says, “The law was ordained through angels by [the] hand of a mediator. Now a mediator implies more than one; but God is one.”²⁷⁶ You hear that he individually refers to God and names angels, and introduces between them the mediator, saying, “Now a mediator implies more than one.” Consequently, he existed even before the Incarnation because he acted as a mediator at the time of Moses for the giving of the Law.

[11] (66) The same Apostle also calls him “High-priest,” saying, “We have a great high-priest, who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God.”²⁷⁷

[12] (67) Not only [this], but the same Apostle also knows the same to be the “Radiance of the glory” and “Exact Imprint of God” and “Son” and “Heir,” since he says, “In these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed the heir of all, through whom he also made the ages. He is the radiance of glory and the exact imprint of his hypostasis,”²⁷⁸ and, just as above it was said concerning the Word, “All things were made through him,”²⁷⁹ and concerning the light, “He was in the world, and the world was made through him,”²⁸⁰ and concerning Jesus Christ, “For us there is one Lord Jesus Christ, (68) through whom are all things,”²⁸¹ see here how in similar fashion it is said concerning him: “through whom he also made the ages.”²⁸²

[13] It is worthwhile with these remarks to pay careful attention to the sense in which he was called “Radiance.” For I think the title is indicative of the begetting of the Son from the Father. Because, when the Son has been referred to and when God has been addressed as Father, we often imagine something along the lines of the generation of animals,²⁸³ the Apostle has used an image that is (69) more befitting God, having said about the Father, “He dwells in unapproachable light,”²⁸⁴ and having defined the Son as the radiance of the paternal light, so that the radiance is the offspring of the first light, not in the manner of generation that pertains among mortal animals, but according to the model just described. Therefore, he [Paul] also fittingly calls him “image of the invisible God”²⁸⁵ because he existed “in the form of God,”²⁸⁶ and because (70) he is the radiance and “exact Imprint of the hypostasis.”²⁸⁷

For because of all these [truths], writing about him, he said, “He is the image of the invisible God, firstborn of all creation, for in him all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or principalities or authorities—all things were created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.”²⁸⁸ (71) For these things were said concerning the divinity of the Son of God, even if Marcellus does not think so. For the divine Apostle would not have said all these things concerning the flesh. For this is stupid and unintelligible in addition to being an incoherent interpretation of the phrase. For how was it fitting to say concerning the flesh, “who is the image,” when one should rather say, “it is the image”?

[14] (72) And in another passage, the same [Apostle] also named him “Image of God,” saying, “And even if our gospel has been veiled, it has been veiled to those who are perishing. In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to prevent the light of the gospel of Christ, (73) who is the image of God, from shining in their hearts.”²⁸⁹ We should also investigate the meaning here, since the divine Apostle brought forth a defining statement concerning Christ, having said he was the “Image of God,” lest anyone suppose there are two gods, rather than the one who is over all. For if “there is one God, and no other besides him,”²⁹⁰ he would be the one who is also recognized through the Son as through an image. (74) Therefore, the Son is also God, because of the form of the Father that is in him as in an image. The divine Apostle indeed shows this when at one time he says, “He was in the form of God,”²⁹¹ and at another defines him as the “Image of God.” Therefore, the Son both was and was addressed together with [these] other titles also as “Image of God” before his coming in the flesh. But these [testimonies] from the New Testament have been assembled by us, a few from myriads, for the sake of the due proportion of the treatise.

[15] (75) In addition,²⁹² the prophets of God who lived long ago honored him with different theologies.²⁹³ For one called him “Spirit of God,” saying, “There shall come forth a shoot from the stump of Jesse, and a branch shall grow out of his roots. And the Spirit of God shall rest upon him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding,”²⁹⁴ and so forth. For through these words the one who is “from the seed of David according to the flesh”²⁹⁵ and God, the Word, who dwelt in him, became clearly apparent. For this reason the divine Apostle at one time said, “The Lord is the Spirit,”²⁹⁶ and at another, “Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.”²⁹⁷ And another [prophet] likewise calls him “Spirit,” saying, “the Spirit before us, Christ the Lord.”²⁹⁸ Also in the gospel it was said clearly concerning him: “Behold, my servant²⁹⁹ whom I have chosen, my beloved with whom my soul is pleased. I have put my Spirit upon him, and he shall proclaim justice to the Gentiles.”³⁰⁰ 

[16] (76) Another one of the prophets called him “Life” and “Light” in addressing God and saying, “For with you is the fountain of life; in your light we shall see light.”³⁰¹ For who was the fountain of life from God and the light, other than he who said in the gospels, “I am the light of the world,”³⁰² and, “I am the way and the truth and the life”?³⁰³ For this reason again, approaching God as a suppliant in prayer, the prophet says, “Send out your light and your truth; they will lead me.”³⁰⁴

[17] Even Zerubbabel, having proclaimed him as “Truth,” was deemed worthy of the prizes of victory when he was summoned before the King of the Persians, saying, “The (77) truth endures and is strong forever, and lives and prevails forever and ever. With her there is no favoritism, but she does what is just instead of anything that is unjust or wicked.”³⁰⁵ To this he adds, “To her belong the strength and the kingship and the power and the majesty of all the ages.”³⁰⁶ For having said that the truth lives and conquers and rules, he revealed in the clearest possible fashion [the Truth’s] hypostasis. And in accordance with these statements even the Savior himself, in calling himself truth, confirmed the testimony of Zerubbabel.

[18] (78) And he also called him a “River” who said, “There is a river whose streams make glad the city of God.”³⁰⁷

[19] (79) And already he addressed him as “Mountain” who said, “the mountain in which God is pleased to dwell.”308 For this reason also in Daniel [we read] the stone cut “from the mountain” “without hands”309 and again the same had been seen, having been restored to the lofty mountain, the mountain signifying the pre-existence of his divinity,310 and the stone his humanity.

[20] (80) And the prophets³¹¹ called him “Justice,” such as the one who said, “Who roused justice from the east?”³¹² 

[21] And [they called him] “Sun of justice”; for example, the one who said, “But for those who fear me, the sun of justice will rise, and healing will be on its wings,”³¹³ and another [prophet] says, “The sun will go down on the prophets,” “those who lead my people astray.”³¹⁴ For indeed these statements would not be suitably applied to the visible sun, but neither would they be so to the incarnate Word.

[22] (81) Solomon in Proverbs calls him “Wisdom,” too, saying, “Wisdom built her house, and set up seven pillars,”³¹⁵ and so forth. And that wisdom pre-existed the world, living and subsisting, he himself taught from the mouth of wisdom herself, having uttered these words: “I, wisdom, live with prudence, and I attain knowledge and discretion,”³¹⁶ and adding in what follows, “By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just; by me the great are magnified, and rulers govern the land through me.”³¹⁷ 

[23] (82) But Solomon addresses him also as both “Tree of life” and “Lord,” saying, “[This] is a tree of life to all who lay hold of it, and steadfast for those who lean upon it as upon the Lord.”³¹⁸

[24] (83) And the father of Solomon, David, in the Psalms, named him “Lord” together with “Priest,” in one passage, saying, “The Lord said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand,”³¹⁹ and in another claiming, “The Lord has sworn and will not change his mind. You are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”³²⁰

[25] (84) And the same [David] knew to confess him as “God,” proclaiming, “Your throne, O God, endures forever and ever; your royal scepter is a scepter of equity. You loved justice and hated wickedness. Because of this, God, your God, anointed you with the oil of gladness above your fellows.”³²¹ For if in these lines God is anointed by God, who else would he be but the very one who was proclaimed Christ [“Anointed One”] because of the paternal anointing?

[26] (85) And this same [Christ] was also the “Beloved by God,” which indeed the title of the Psalm shows, which says, “An ode for the beloved.”³²²

[27] (86) Isaiah calls him “Arm,” saying, “The Lord will reveal his holy arm before the eyes of all the nations.”³²³ 

[28] And David knew him to be “Justice” together with “Salvation,” and so he said, “The Lord made known his salvation; before the nations (87) he revealed his justice”;³²⁴ and again: “Tell of his salvation from day to day”;³²⁵ and again: “Who will render out of Zion the salvation of Israel?”³²⁶ and, “Show to us your mercy, Lord, and grant us your salvation.”³²⁷ 

[29] And what need is there for me to take up each example, when for the one who is eager to learn it is possible to gather together these sorts of examples from throughout the divinely inspired Scripture, through which the men of God, illuminated by the divine Spirit, reveal the knowledge of the only-begotten Son, which at that time was a secret from and escaped the notice of the majority of the Jewish people? For this reason, they also proclaimed him in various ways with forms of address that have been concealed. For the grace of the proclamation of the theology concerning him was preserved for his coming, by which his Church throughout the world, as if receiving some mystery that was long ago kept hidden in silence, (88) is exalted.

Indeed, the divine Apostle also teaches this when he says, “According to the divine office which was given to me for you, to make the word of God fully known, the mystery hidden for ages and generations, but now made manifest to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, which is Christ in you, the hope of glory.”³²⁸

You see that the Son of God was the mystery that was previously hidden, but now (89) has been made manifest. For this reason the prophets of God wrote their mystical theology about him in the prophetic spirit while the majority of the Jewish nation remained in ignorance of the hidden mystery—as a result of which they were taught to know one God because they were repeatedly being dragged down by polytheistic error, but were ignorant that God was Father of the only-begotten Son. For this mystery was preserved for the Church [to be formed] from the Gentiles, (90) according to [the] excellent grace granted to it, for in him are, according to the Apostle, “hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.”³²⁹

But through all these passages the Word of God, who “in the beginning was with God,”³³⁰ was shown to have been called not only “Word,” as Marcellus thinks, but also “Son,” “Only-begotten,” “Light,” “Bread,” “Jesus,” “Christ,” “Lord,” “High Priest,” “Radiance,” “Character,” “Image,” “Firstborn of all creation,” “Font of life,” “Truth,” “River,” “ Justice,” “Sun of justice,” “Wisdom,” “Tree of life,” “Lord,” “God,” “Beloved,” “Priest,” “Arm,” “Justice,” and “Salvation.” And he was and was called all these things even when he pre-existed the flesh, just as the (91) Scriptures cited have shown. Well now, for what reason, having disregarded all these truths, does Marcellus insist upon “the Word” alone, not even passing over to the remaining names, but alleging that he is only Word of God and the communicating Word, who at one time rests in silence in God and at another speaks or acts in activity alone, other than that he openly Sabellianizes, and does not believe in the Son of God nor acknowledge the mystery that pre-existed long ago, and which was made manifest only to the Church (92) of Christ through his grace?  

... (94) For this reason we are also taught that the Son is all these things, seeing as he is the only-begotten Son and heir of the Father and also possesses whatever the Father possesses.³³⁵ For this reason he has been said to be in the form of God and image of God, according to the divine Apostle, who said, “who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped at,”³³⁶ and again, “who is the image of God.”³³⁷ (95) Consequently, that God is rational was not “the mystery, which was hidden for ages and generations,”³³⁸ nor was this mystery “now made manifest,”³³⁹ having been acknowledged by all men by means of natural notions; for if someone were to ask what sort of mystery it is, the Apostle answers, saying “[the mystery] now made manifest to his saints. To them God chose to make known how great among the Gentiles are the riches of the glory of this mystery, (96) which is Christ in you.”³⁴⁰ 

Christ, therefore, was the mystery, and it is clear that he is the Son of God. For this reason the prophets of God previously glorified him mystically with various forms of address, concealing his ineffability and dispensing³⁴¹ by his grace his revelation to all.

Well now, when after so many scriptural testimonies Marcellus affirms that in the beginning before the assumption of the flesh the Word was nothing other than Word and was called by no other name, but then acquired other titles when “the Word became flesh”³⁴² (before this being nothing other than Word), how could he not be convicted as unlearned and devoid of understanding of the divine Scriptures? But since this is so, bring on the rest, so that we might examine further the new Sabellius come back to life.

262. 1 Cor 8.6.

263. That is, even if not for Jews and radical unitarians like Marcellus.

264. In view of everything Eusebius has said about creation happening through the pre-existent Son and Word and not the incarnate man Jesus, it is clear that he thinks the attribution of the phrase “through whom are all things” to the flesh that the Son assumes is nonsensical.

265. 1 Cor 10.4.

266. 1 Cor 10.9.

267. Heb 11.24, 26.

268. Phil 2.5–7.

269. Phil 2.5–6.

331. Eph 3.9; Col 1.26.

332. Marcellus, fr. 96 (50 K./H.) (84,9–11 V.).

333. Literally, “without a word”: ἀλόγος.

334. For the philosophical background to Eusebius’s discussion here of “natural notions” about God, see St. Basil of Caesarea, Against Eunomius, trans. Mark DelCogliano and Andrew Radde-Gallwitz, FOTC 122 (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2011), 108, n. 77. 335. A possible allusion to Jn 16.15? 336. Phil 2.6. 337. Col 1.15. 338. Col 1.26.

339. Ibid. 340. Col 1.26–27.

341. The idea expressed here is that the mystery of Christ’s identity is given out bit by bit over time.

342. Jn 1.14. (Pp. 206-218)

There's a lot more from Eusebius in the next post: Eusebius on the Trinity Part 2.