§ 6. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF EUSEBIUS

Eusebius was in his day the leading representative of ecclesiastical conservatism. That is to say, his theology was, allowing for the difference of period, almost precisely that of Origen. For as Dr. Bigg ⁸ has remarked : "What struck later ages as the novelty and audacity of Origen's doctrine was in truth its archaism and conservatism." This system of doctrine had captured the Eastern Church, and men like Eusebius had absorbed it from the lips of those who had sat at the feet of Origen himself. It was in accord with the general outlook of cultured men. It appeared to be the logical development of orthodox thought. It is true that elements that had been prominent in heretical teaching were included in it, but they were the good elements, and their carefully limited position in the system made them innocuous. It was the unfolding of the Logos-doctrine on a basis loyal to Scripture and the Rule of Faith. The Logos-theology was the natural way then to think about the immanence of God. It had been appropriated for the Christian Religion long ago by the Apologists. The theology based upon it stood not only for a fascinating idealistic faith, but also for (the strongest bulwark against what orthodoxy dreaded most-the heresies which tended to make the divine Persons but temporary manifestations of one Godhead, viz. Modalism or Sabellianism. The Logos-theology stressed the unchangeable-ness of the Father, and His distinction from the Son, one in essence though They might be. For the moment the distinction of the Son from the Father was more important to the Church than the question how far such a distinction implied subordination and inferiority. Justin had not 

v shirked the phrase δευτερος θεος, neither did Origen. As Dr. Sanday has said: "The reaction against Sabellianism (which became a general term including all forms of Monarchianism) had not a little to do with the exaggerations on the other side; and in particular the dread of this form of error contributed to the rapid rise and spread of Arianism."⁹ The point where Arianism touched this established and somewhat quiescent theology was exactly where Origen had discouraged speculation. He had given to the Church the doctrine of the eternal generation, but pronounced its comprehension beyond human reason. Arians claimed the right to open a door that was shut. But the disciples of Origen were not perhaps so much disposed to quarrel with adventurers into the uncharted realms "of the ineffable relations of the Godhead before the remotest beginnings of time,"¹⁰ provided they held some form of the Logos-doctrine, as they were to withstand those who rejected it altogether. And their own language is to a later age sometimes indistinguishable from Arianism. Of such a theology the doctrinal parts of the Demonstratio may be considered representative. Let us briefly examine it.

As Harnack says : "Eusebius was more convinced than Origen that the idea of deity was completely exhausted in that of the strictly one and unchangeable ον the πρωτη ουσια; he separated the δευτερος θεος much further from God than the Apologists."¹¹ We therefore find the utmost emphasis laid on the Absolute Character of Cod the Unbegotten. He is "the One αρχη born before the first, earlier than the Monad" (745 b). He precedes the Son in existence (147), is "the greater God, and as such alone holds the name in His own right" (κυριως) (226). He is as the Sun to the world, too mighty to mingle with created things directly, requiring a Mediator, through whom to create and govern the created world (154).

Therefore by His own will He begets the Logos, "the first-born Wisdom altogether formed of Wisdom, and Reason and Mind, or rather Wisdom itself, Reason itself, and Mind itself" (146,1). He "alone bears the inconceivable image in Himself through which He is God, and also because of

vi His appointment to guide the Universe" (146 c); i.e. He is divine by essence as well as by office.

Eusebius uses the well-worn similes of the Apologists: the relation of the Father to the Son is as light to its ray, as myrrh to its scent, as a king to his portrait. But there is the important difference sufficiently stressed, that having been begotten the Son exists apart from the Father in His own essence (147). Yet worship is due to Him as δευτερος θεος because the greater God dwells in Him (226 d), as the image of a king is honoured not for its own sake, but for the sake of the king. So the words, "They shall know Thee the only true God" cannot be referred to the Logos or Holy Spirit, but only to the Unbegotten (231).

In the work of creation He stands "midway between the begotten and the Unbegotten." As with Origen and the Neoplatonists He is the "idea of the world," the basis (θεμελιος) for all created things (213). And it is because of His connection with the world that lower predicates are attached to Him - He is now God's δημιουργημα (146 b) and υπουργος (257 b) ; the "second cause " (216 b); "a second Lord" (227 d), and is said "to have attained secondary honours" (δευτερειων ηξιωσθαι) (227 d). So the Father is "Lord and God" of the Son (233 a).

In the Incarnation Eusebius teaches the distinctive doctrine of Origen that the Logos associates Himself with a pure, unfallen human soul. "He remains Himself immaterial and unembodied as He was before with the Father" (169 b). "No evil deed can harm Him, because He is not really embodied" (168). "He shared His own gifts with men, and received nothing in return" (ib.).

His Body is hut the earthen lamp through which His light shines (188). He comes to republish the true doctrine, from which man has fallen away through the deceptions of the dnemons, to establish a Church to preach it, and to bring man back to God. Once Eusebius uses the word συναποθεοω, "to deify men with Himself" as the object of the Incarnation (170). Five reasons are given for the Death on the Cross (167). It is chiefly the decisive triumph over the daemons, but it is also an expiatory sacrifice for the sins of men. "He offered Himself and the Humanity He assumed to the higher and greater God." In His earthly life Christ now revealed the Humanity and

vii now the Divinity (165); and it is possible for Eusebius, leaving the Logos in the background, to devote part of a Book to meeting the common man on his own ground, and to treat of the perfection of Christ's life and teaching as merely human.

The missing Books no doubt dealt with the Risen and Ascended Christ, and the Holy Spirit. There are only hints on these topics in the Books before us. He is "Priest of the obedient to the Father" (164 d). There is a passage (220 a) which especially rouses the anger of de Billy, a famous student of the Greek Fathers in the sixteenth century. It is the interpretation of Ps. cix. : "The Lord said unto My Lord," where the first Lord is said to mean the Father, and the second the Son, Who is thus confessed by the Holy Spirit in David, to be his Lord: "Quod quidem credere quid aliud est quam horrendae impietatis crimine se astringere!" (Billius, Obs. Sac. I. 29, p. 48).

It is clear that the theology of Origen is presented here either directly or by implication: Origen taught that God is the only real essence, that by the necessity of His Nature He reveals Himself; that by an act of will He eternally begets the Logos, which is His Consciousness, and also the Idea of the World; that the Logos being the Image of God is essentially God, not begotten in time nor out of the nonexistent; that He is no impersonal Force, but a Second Person in the Godhead. That as the Idea of the World He is subordinate, and in His office to creation both κτισμα and δημιουργημα; that His Incarnation is a Union (almost docetic) with an unfallen soul, with which He lives and which He draws up to Himself by bonds of mutual love; that His work on earth is chiefly the republication of truth to enlighten men blinded by daemons; that His Death was complete Victory over them, and also sacrificial; that the Humanity was gradually deified until at last the man Jesus passed into the Logos, and that this deification is the destiny of all who share the Logos now.

Such is a bald summary of perhaps the greatest theological system of antiquity, and it is obvious how it lies behind and beneath all that Eusebius says. Like Origen, he rests on Biblical exegesis and is dominated by the Rule of Faith; like Origen, he refrains from speculation on the mystery of the coming-into-being (ουσιωσις) of the Logos. He expresses

viii the point-of-view of a dominant theology in an assured tone. He speaks as one who voices the opinion of the great mass of cultured believers; for Origen was in possession, and Arius and the Homoousians were alike innovators.

The Creed of the Church of Caesarea, which Eusehius presented at Nicaea as an eirenicon to be accepted by both parties, embodied this theology. "It bears," says Dr. Bright, "a considerable resemblance to that which the Council ultimately framed: it was emphatic on the personal distinctions in the Holy Trinity, asserting each Person to be and to exist as truly Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; it recognizes "One Lord Jesus Christ as 'the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Only-begotten Son, First-born of all Creation, Begotten before all ages, and through Whom all things come into being,' and it mentioned also His becoming 'incarnate for our salvation, His Life among men, His Passion, Resurrection on the third day, Ascension to the Father, and future Coming in glory to judge (the) quick and dead,' and concluded as then quoted, with 'We believe also in one Holy Spirit'; yet it was not sufficiently explicit as to the main point at stake, His eternal relation to the Father." ¹²

This deficiency was to be supplied by the inclusion of the Homoousion. The Son must be defined as "of the same essence" as the Father. No statement that He was begotten before time was adequate. The Logos must be distinctly separated from the created Universe. And this the Homoousion alone would effect for minds of that day. But it was unfortunately a suspected term. It had been anathematized at the Council of Antioch (A.D. 269) when employed by Paul of Samosata. Athanasius used it sparingly in its hour of victory. Later on the Semi-Arians rejected it as savouring of Sabellianism. No wonder it seemed to steady conservatives like Eusebius, who did not wish to define the ineffable, to head straight for Modalistic views. How could two "of the same essence" be aught but one under different aspects? The doctrinal trend of Eusebius, as Harnack recognizes, was to widen the gulf between the πρωτη αιτια and the Logos, rather than to lessen it. The

ix  Homoousion seemed perilously like filling it up. But with the necessary limitations he could conscientiously sign it. Safeguarded from Sabellian implications it was harmless. The theology of the Demonstratio shows quite clearly how and in what sense the word could be used credally by an exponent of the Origenic theology without any violence to conscience. It makes his attitude throughout the momentous days at Nicea intelligible and creditable to him as a peacemaker. The letter ¹³ he wrote to his diocese becomes no mere shuffling apology, but an honest statement. He makes it perfectly clear in what sense he understands the Homoousion. He explains that he has signed on the representation of the Emperor that "consubstantial" implied nothing physical, but must be regarded as having "a divine and mysterious signification." Thus, he says that it does not imply that the Son is "a part of the Father," nor does "Begotten, not made," mean more than that the Son does not form part of the created Universe, and "does not resemble in any respect the creatures which He has made, but that to the Father alone, Who begat Him, He is in all points perfectly like; for He is of the essence and of the substance of none save the Father."

He also said that he agreed to the anathemas on those who said that the Son "came out of the non-existent," or that "there was a time when He was not," because of the un-Scriptural nature of such expressions. Finally, he definitely asserted that the new formula was in agreement with the Creed that he had originally proposed.

Acquaintance with the Demonstratio guarantees the sincerity of the statement. If the Homoousion was to be understood as explained by Constantine, signing it involved no violent wrench with the past. It was capable of being transplanted into the creed of Eusebius. Even Origen had used the word in the sense now applied to it. If Eusebius signed with reluctance, he signed with sincerity.

There is a statement of Harnack's that the Logos-doctrine as held by Eusebius "effaced the historical Christ." It would give the impression that theologians of the school of Origen necessarily followed the Gnostics

x in all their flights. If Hellenic speculation had been the only wing of their theology, they might logically have held a faith of mere abstractions. But the school, like its master, was marked by its devotion to Scriptural exegesis. It was Biblical to the core. Hence such a statement as Harnack's in the face of the earlier part of the Demonstratio appears grotesque and exaggerated. At any rate Eusebius' hold on the Gospel history was firm and sure. No one can read the third Book without realizing that Eusebius had an interest in the earthly life of our Lord that effectually neutralized the dangers of Gnostic abstract speculation. He had an evangelical sense of the value of all the words and deeds of the Incarnate Christ. His picture of Jesus Christ is not a mass of high-sounding phrases and Biblical images, it is the work of a pastor of souls, who, however abstract his formal theology may be, understands quite well, that it is the concrete historical facts that move men, not the philosophical theories that underlie them, and that the Word took flesh and wrought the Creed of Creeds, that He might enter in at the doors, not only of the lowly, but of all who are formed of human elements.