Eusebius’ Contra Marcellum.

Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology

by Christopher A. Beeley1

Eusebius of Caesarea’s reputation as a theologian has rarely matched his

stature as the father of church history. Long derided as a subordination-
ist, an Arian sympathizer, and in thrall to pagan cosmologies, Eusebius is
inevitably associated with – alas – the “Eusebians”2. Despite the fact that
he solidly renounced his initial support of Arius, and ancients and moderns
alike have recognized that his theology represented a broad consensus of
Eastern bishops, most interpreters continue to evaluate Eusebius’ doctrine
in contrast with that of Alexander and Athanasius of Alexandria, the
champions of Nicene orthodoxy in the early- to mid-fourth century3. It is
widely known that the category “Eusebians” (oƒ perˆ EÙsšbion)4 is itself
the invention of Eusebius’ opponent Athanasius, although Athanasius
applies the term to Eusebius of Caesarea less frequently than he does to
Eusebius of Nicomedia and Asterius5. Being aware of the term’s provenance,
1
Thanks to Hanns Christof Brennecke and J. Rebecca Lyman for comments on an earlier
draft of this article.
2
A group so named for their supposed allegiance with Eusebius of Nicomedia/Constan-
tinople.
3
This includes the most recent studies of fourth-century theology: see, e.g., J. Behr, The
Nicene Faith. Formation of Christian Theology, 2 vols., Crestwood (New York) 2004,
64-76; L. Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy. An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian
Theology, Oxford 2004, 52.58-60. Ayres identifies the Eusebians and those associated
with Athanasius as “two distinct trends” of thought about the generation of the Son in
the early-fourth century. Marcellus of Ancyra is omitted from both groups; see also Behr,
Nicene Faith (see note 3), 41-43.
4
Ath., Apol. sec. 1,3 (Athanasius Werke 2/1, 88,1-6 Opitz), along with many instances
following.
5
On Athanasius’ construction of the polemical category of Arian “Eusebians”, see D.M.
Gwynn, The Eusebians. The Polemic of Athanasius of Alexandria and the Construction
of the ‘Arian Controversy’, OTM, Oxford 2007. By comparison with his other op-
ponents, Athanasius handles the esteemed bishop of Caesarea rather tenderly. He does
refer derogatorily to “the two Eusebii” among those who attended the Council of Tyre,
which deposed him (Ath., Apol. sec. 87 [165,36-166,1 O.]); yet in no other work does
he mention Eusebius by name, and he later tries to make room for Eusebius’ letter to his
church in Caesarea within his own interpretation of Nicaea (Ath., decr. 3 [Athanasius
Werke 2/1, 15-18 Opitz]; syn. 13 [Athanasius Werke 2/1, 1-45 Opitz]). Eusebius’ posi-
tion in church and empire is a possible explanation for Athanasius’ light touch; actual
theological rapprochement cannot be ruled out. In any event, both Eusebii had died by
343. See Gwynn, The Eusebians (see note 5), 110f.

ZAC, vol. 12, pp. 433-452 DOI 10.1515/ZAC.2008.027

© Walter de Gruyter 2009
434 Christopher A. Beeley

however, has not deterred most scholars from viewing Eusebius through
a polemical lens. To complicate matters further, Eusebius’ unashamed
loyalty to Origen has further tarnished the reception of his work. Yet
complaints against Eusebius’ Origenism are extremely ironic, in light of
the similar use of Origenist principles by such “orthodox” theologians as
the Cappadocian Fathers.
Modern scholars tend to base their accounts of Eusebius’ theology on
his long apologetic works, the Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio
evangelica, along with the documents surrounding Nicaea. Like most
Christian apologists before and since, Eusebius attempts to bring the
Gospel into close contact with the dominant intellectual forces of the
day, in order to demonstrate the viability and superiority of Christianity
in his contemporary environment6. When viewed primarily through the
apologetic works, Eusebius not surprisingly appears to offer an amalgam of
moderate, adapted Origenism and stock Middle Platonism7. Not only are
these works shaped by the complex motives of traditional apologetic; they
consist largely of biblical quotations and contain little sustained theological
argumentation, which makes a systematic theological assessment more dif-
ficult than meets the eye. With regard to the Council of Nicaea – including
Eusebius’ qualified acceptance of the term ÐmooÚsioj – Eusebius’ own views
are muddled by surrounding ecclesiastical and political concerns. Many
Asian bishops perceived the council as the instrument of a Marcellan
theological agenda (which to some extent it clearly was); yet Eusebius
did not produce a detailed response to Marcellus until many years later.
Eusebius’ letters, furthermore, are generally terse, and they are encumbered
by layers of synodical and political concerns. Eusebius’ much-cited letter to
his church in Caesarea concerning the council8 incorporates Constantine’s
views on the lÒgoj, which stand in some contrast with Eusebius’ own
doctrine of the Son documented elsewhere9. Eusebius’ early apologetic and
6
Written in response to Porphyry’s criticisms of Christian biblical exegesis, Eusebius’
Praeparatio evangelica and Demonstratio evangelica are among the longest works of early
Christian apologetics. The first shows the superiority of Christianity to Greek philosophy
and mythology, and the second continues the argument by demonstrating Christ’s fulfill-
ment of Hebrew prophecy. Both works consist primarily of biblical quotations. In addition
to their anti-pagan apologetic, the two works also carry forward traditional contrasts of
Christianity with Judaism. On the latter, see now J. Ulrich, Euseb von Caesarea und die
Juden. Studien zur Rolle der Juden in der Theologie des Eusebius von Caesarea, PTS 49,
Berlin 1999. Eusebius’ third apologetic work, the De Theophania, was written consider-
ably later than the other two, and has a different purpose; on which more below.
7
See, e.g., R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. The Arian
Controversy 318-381, Edinburgh 1988, 52. Eusebius’ perceived intellectual milieu was
largely Platonic, with less Stoicism than Clement of Alexandria and Origen had previ-
ously engaged.
8
Eusebius, Epistula ad Caesarienses, edited in: Urkunden zur Geschichte des Arianischen Streits
318-328, hg. von H.-G. Opitz, Athanasius Werke 3/1, Berlin/Leipzig 1934, 42-47.
9
See H. Strutwolf, Trinitätstheologie und Christologie des Euseb von Caesarea. Eine dog-
mengeschichtliche Untersuchung seiner Platonismusrezeption und Wirkungsgeschichte,
FKDG 72, Göttingen 1999.
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 435

epistolary works, which form the basis of most modern judgements that
Eusebius is a “Eusebian” in the Athanasian sense, are therefore problematic
in several major respects.
If we seek a more direct and explicitly argued statement of Eusebius’
theological position, we do best to turn instead to his late works written
in response to Marcellus of Ancyra: the Contra Marcellum and especially
the De ecclesiastica theologia. Here Eusebius expresses his own views at
greater length than he has previously, as part of an attempt to counteract
the doctrine of Marcellus, which he believes has threatened the faith of the
Eastern church since before the council of 32510. Unlike the caricatured
“Eusebians” of Athanasius’ Orationes contra Arianos, which were written
at roughly the same time, the mature Eusebius defines himself against both
Arian subordinationism and, even more strongly, the “Sabellianism” of
Marcellus of Ancyra. In his mature Christological works, Eusebius provides
a theological and exegetical framework that clarifies – and, most likely,
deepens – his understanding of the nature of Christ as Son and Image of
God in the aftermath of Nicaea and through the continued debate with
Marcellus. The Contra Marcellum gives a series of quotations from Mar-
cellus’ Contra Asterium, which are apparently supposed to be self-evident
in their absurdity, interspersed with Eusebius’ occasional commentary.
Eusebius then gives his most thorough and mature theological exposition
in the De ecclesiastica theologia, also directed against Marcellus. Together
with his last apologetic treatise, the De Theophania11, Eusebius’ late works
not only show him to be more orthodox than Athanasius would have us
believe, but they provide ample evidence that Eusebius had a formative
influence on later theologians such as Basil of Caesarea, Gregory of Nazian-
zus, and Cyril of Alexandria, thus contributing directly to the development
of orthodox Christology and Trinitarian doctrine.

The Terms of Debate

The points of disagreement between Eusebius and Marcellus are fairly

well known12. Reduced to the briefest scope, Marcellus upholds the radical
unity of God, even in the incarnation, whereas Eusebius emphasizes the
plurality of three Øpost£seij in the Trinity, which he takes to be revealed

10
In these texts the interpretive problem is just the reverse: it is Marcellus’ position that is
now difficult to discern behind Eusebius’ strong and clear argument.
11
Eusebius may have written the De Theophania in response to Athanasius’ De Incarna-
tione (or, just possibly, vice-versa). As their titles indicate, each work is an account of
the meaning of Christ’s incarnation, along predominantly anti-Marcellan and anti-Arian
lines, respectively.
12
The most useful summary is that of J.T. Lienhard, Contra Marcellum. Marcellus of
Ancyra and Fourth-Century Theology, Washington DC 1999, 47-68.104-135 (chapters
3 and 5). There remains, however, much room for further analysis, from the ordering of
436 Christopher A. Beeley

by the incarnation. For Marcellus, the Father and Son are “one and the
same thing” (›n te kaˆ taÙtÒn), distinguished in name but in fact one in
oÙs…a and ØpÒstasij. In response, Eusebius insists that the Father and Son
exist apart from the incarnation as two distinct Øpost£seij, and he faults
Marcellus for holding that the Trinity is merely “one hypostasis with three
faces and three names” (m…a ØpÒstasij triprÒswpon ésper kaˆ triènu-
mon)13. Marcellus argues further that the preincarnated Son is primarily
the Word in the truest sense (kÚrioj kaˆ alhqèj)14, existing within the one
God as God’s communicative and rational capacity, much as a mental or
spoken word expresses the thoughts of a human mind. Marcellus holds
that the Word of God extends “outward”, becoming separate or distinct
from God, for the purposes of creation and redemption; whereas before
the creation of the cosmos God existed alone, and (most infamously) after
the final consummation the Word will cease to be active and distinct, and
God will again be “all in all”, as Paul states15. On these points, Eusebius
criticizes Marcellus’ comparison of the Word to a human word; he likens
Marcellus’ notion that the Word exists first in God “by dÚnamij” and later
extends “by ™nšrgeia” to the Stoic lÒgoj ™ndi£qetoj and lÒgoj proforikÒj16;
and he regards the Word in Marcellus’ scheme as nothing more than an
accident that inheres in a substance. For Eusebius, on the contrary, it is
essential that the Son truly lives and exists and subsists alongside God
the Father.
With regard to the incarnation, Eusebius finds Marcellus’ doctrine
lacking in both the divine and the human directions. He faults Marcellus
for suggesting that “God himself”17 – which for Eusebius means preemi-
nently God the Father – became incarnate from Mary (thus voicing a
common resistance to patripassianism) and for considering Jesus to be

the Marcellan fragments to the comparison of Marcellus’ work with that of Athanasius
against the “Arians”. On the latter, see S. Parvis, T¦ t…nwn ¥ra _»mata qeologe‹? The Ex-
egetical Relationship Between Athanasius’s Orationes contra Arianos I-III and Marcellus
of Ancyra’s Contra Asterium, in: L. DeTommaso/L. Turcescu (eds.), The Reception and
Interpretation of the Bible in Late Antiquity. Proceedings of the Montréal Colloquium
in Honour of Charles Kannengiesser, 11-13 October 2006, Leiden 2008.
13
So that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are in fact “the same” (Eus., e.th. III 6,4 [GCS
Eusebius 34, 164,23-28 Klostermann/Hansen]).
14
Marcell., fr. 46 (GCS Eusebius 34, 193 Klostermann/Hansen). The fragments of Marcel-
lus are cited according to the numbering of Klostermann (185-215 K./H.), which does
not match the numbering of Rettberg printed in Klostermann’s text of De ecclesiastica
theologia and Marcellus.
15
1Cor 15,28.
16
Eus., e.th. II 15,4 (118,23 K./H.). For a reconsideration of the meaning of these terms
in Marcellus’ thought, see S. Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra and the Lost Years of the
Arian Controversy 325-345, Oxford 2006, 33f. It must be said, however, that Parvis’
comparison of Marcellus’ dÚnamij and ™nšrgeia with Irenaeus’ two hands of God does
not fully answer Eusebius’ anti-modalist concern.
17
Eus., e.th. I 1 (62 K./H.); see e.th. II 1 (99f. K./H.).
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 437

merely human18, adopted into association with the Word. Coupled with
these concerns is their disagreement over Christ’s status as mediator and
image of God. For Marcellus, the Son is the image of God only in the flesh;
as the eternal Word he is not God’s image but is precisely the same thing
as God. Eusebius insists, however, that the Son is the image of God apart
from the incarnation, as Origen had also taught. On the whole, Marcel-
lus’ understanding of Christ and the Trinity looks to Eusebius alarmingly
Sabellian, and Eusebius spares no effort in trying to show what is at stake
for the faith of the Church.

The Interpretation of Scripture

Since the late-nineteenth century, theologians and church historians have

tended to characterize traditional Christian sources by means of such bare,
technical descriptions alone, and this approach lingers on despite several
fruitful decades of broader reflection on the nature of early Christianity
among several academic disciplines. Yet the more one reads, the clearer it
becomes how far such technical narrowness is from the mind of early Chris-
tian theologians themselves. In Eusebius’ case, these caricatures have been
particularly misleading when left unsupported by surrounding doctrinal
and exegetical argumentation19. In the De ecclesiastica theologia, Eusebius
himself insists that his disagreement with Marcellus is over the interpreta-
tion of Scripture above all. From the beginning of the work, he repeatedly
charges Marcellus with falsifying or not understanding Scripture20, and
he makes his own argument for the most part directly from Scripture21.
Several times Eusebius indicates what interpreters have often assumed

18
Eus., e.th. I 20,41-43 (87f. K./H.).
19
Fortunately, scholars such as Rebecca Lyman, Joseph Lienhard, and Holger Strutwolf
have begun to move the study of Eusebius beyond this point. By contrast, J.M. Robert-
son, Christ as Mediator. A Study of the Theologies of Eusebius of Caesarea, Marcellus
of Ancyra and Athanasius of Alexandria, Oxford 2007 strikes me as regressive in this
respect.
20
“Not one word of the inspired Scripture provides a witness that harmonizes (sunJdÒn)
with [Marcellus’] denial of the Son of God”, Eusebius writes in the preface to the work
(Eus., e.th. I praefatio [62,13-15 K./H.]). Such charges generally frame the main argu-
mentative sections – Marcellus “speaks falsely of the divine Scripture” (e.th. I 17 [77f.
K./H.]) and “reports falsely divine Scripture” (e.th. I 18 [78-80 K./H.]), Eusebius writes
near the end of the first main unit (e.th. I praefatio I 19 [62-80 K./H.]).
21
On the manner of God’s generation of the Son, God’s words in Scripture are sufficient
for our knowledge (Eus., e.th. I 12 [70-72 K./H.]). See also e.th. I 20 (80-98 K./H.):
the grace of faith alone teaches that the Father has delivered all things to the Son. The
De ecclesiastica theologia begins with polemical engagement and dogmatic summaries,
after which comes the exegetical underpinning, in Eus., e.th. I 19f. (80-98 K./H.) and
the bulk of books 2 and 3. Eusebius’ exegesis becomes thickest as he turns to Marcellus’
errors, at e.th. II 1 (99f. K./H.). The exegetical basis of Eusebius’ position is clearer in
the De ecclesiastica theologia than in the Contra Marcellum.
438 Christopher A. Beeley

about anti-modalist Christology, that it fails to make sense of the multiple

figures and voices in the biblical text. In an extended discussion of John
5-8, he asks how Jesus could have said that he did all these things from,
to, and alongside the Father if he did not live and subsist distinctly from
the Father22. Comparing Eusebius’ philosophical cosmology and biblical
exegesis in his apologetic works, Rebecca Lyman observes that the latter
would in fact produce the same result often ascribed to the former, if left
to work on its own: “That is to say, if a cosmology were constructed on
the basis of the biblical record of the relationship of the Father and the Son
[alone], an ontological hierarchy and separation would naturally result, a
hierarchy and separation more striking than in contemporary Platonism
because of the personal relational language of obedience and worship”23.
The heart of Eusebius’ theology, and consequently his major disagreements
with Marcellus, are deeply shaped by his interpretation of Scripture. We can
discover the basic principles of Eusebius’ exegesis most easily by examining
several particular examples from the anti-Marcellan works.

Key Exegetical Examples

Among the many biblical texts that Eusebius discusses, the most signifi-
cant is 1Cor 8,6: “for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all
things and for whom we exist, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom
are all things and through whom we exist”. This verse represents a sum-
mary of Christian belief in book 1 of the De ecclesiastica theologia24, and
it is the first text that Eusebius cites in book 225. By contrast, Eusebius
does not cite the verse at all in his two earlier apologetic works, a fact
that further illustrates the differences of approach between the two sets
of works26. Eusebius notices several key points in Paul’s statement: that
the one God is the Father of Jesus Christ; that Christ is clearly referred
to as the means of creation, and therefore must be the Son of God who
existed before the cosmos27; and that this confession of Christ’s preexist-

22
Eus., e.th. I 20,6 (86-89 K./H.). See also e.th. I 20,5 (83-86 K./H.): the one who was
sent must be different from the one who sent him. So too, the Scriptures plainly teach
that Christ is primarily the Son, not the Word (e.th. I 15 [74f. K./H.]).
23
R.J. Lyman, Christology and Cosmology. Models of Divine Action in Origen, Eusebius,
and Athanasius, Oxford 1993, 117. I agree with Lyman that Eusebius’ doctrine is
fundamentally biblical and only secondarily philosophical, although I understand the
ontological consequences differently (see below).
24
Eus., e.th. I 6 (64f. K./H.).
25
Eus., e.th. II 2 (100f. K./H.).
26
1Cor 8,6 does appear, however, in the De Theophania, which indicates the closer relation-
ship of that work to the De ecclesiastica theologia and Contra Marcellum. Eus., theoph.
I 21 (GCS Eusebius 23/2, 45,14 Gressmann/Laminski).
27
Eus., e.th. II 1f. (99-101 K./H.). Consequently, it is absurd to say that God was alone
before creation, as in Marcell., fr. 104 (208 K./H.).
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 439

ence is “for us”, i.e. saving faith28. Reading 1Cor 8,6 together with Phil
2,5-11 and other Pauline texts, Eusebius asks how Christ could possibly
be in the form of God and equal to God, empty himself, and be obedient
to God if he did not initially exist distinctly alongside God the Father29?
Paul’s statement in 1Cor 8 thus provides Eusebius with a clear indication
of Christ’s preexistence and singular identity as the Son of God, much as
it did for Origen before him30.
A second key set of texts for Eusebius is John 5f., together with other
passages in John, in which Jesus speaks of his dependence on and obedi-
ence to the Father. Emblematic of Eusebius’ argument is John 6,38: “I
have come down from heaven not to do my own will but the will of him
who sent me”, together with 5,30: “I can do nothing of myself; […] I seek
not my own will but the will of him who sent me”. Here again Eusebius
notices that the subject who is speaking was at one time pre-incarnate,
is dependent on God the Father, and is himself now the incarnate Lord,
as a single subject of existence. Because Christ speaks in these chapters
as the one Son of God (a single subject), Eusebius takes Jesus’ statement
that his will is dependent on the Father’s will as referring to the will of
the Son of God himself, who preexisted and is now incarnate, not merely
to the human or fleshly will of Jesus as distinct from the will of the Son
of God, as Marcellus would have it. How else, Eusebius asks, could flesh
have come down from heaven, as Jesus says he did? In Eusebius’ view,
these and other passages in John plainly indicate the irreducible presence
of two figures in a particular relationship to one another before and in the
incarnation31. Moreover, such texts paradoxically show that the Father is
superior to the Son – as in John 14,28: “I go to the Father, for the Father
is greater than I”, and 20,17: “I go to my father and your father, to my
God and to your God” – and yet, at the same time, that all people should
honor the Son as God, just as they honor the Father32.

28
Eus., e.th. I 20,8 (89f. K./H.). See also e.th. II 14 (114-118 K./H.); I 6 (64f. K./H.); and
II 2.6.11.18 (100f.103f.112f.121-123 K./H.); Eus., l.C. 12,1; Eus., Marcell. II 2 (GCS
3
4, 34-43 K./H.); theoph. I 21 (45,14 G./L.).
29
Eus., e.th. I 20,9 (90f. K./H.). In the same connection, he cites Heb 1,2 and John 1,10
(God created the world through the Son), and Prov 8,27-30: “when I was preparing
the heavens, I was present with him […] I was daily his delight” (Eus., e.th. II 2 [100f.
K./H.]).
30
In Or., comm. in Rom. VII 11 (VL 34, 614,129-615,142 Hammond Bammel) = VII 13,9
(FaCh 104, 109 Scheck), Origen directly employs 1Cor 8,6 against the doctrine of two
sons. In Or., comm. in Rom. VIII 12 (709,111-114 H.B.) = VIII 13,9 (189 S.), the verse
helps to establish “the mystery of the Trinity”.
31
E.g., “there is another who bears witness to me” (John 5,32; see also 5,37).
32
John 5,22f.; Eus., e.th. II 7 (104-106 K./H.). As shown by the Father’s giving all judg-
ment to the Son. Eusebius’ resolution of Jesus’ seemingly contrary statements thus
surpasses Origen in its regard for the equality of the Son with the Father. Cf. Origen’s
more subordinationist handling of John 14,28 in Or., comm. in Jo. XIII 151-153 (SC
222, 112-114 Blanc) and Cels. VIII 15.
440 Christopher A. Beeley

In light of the New Testament revelation of the Son of God, Eusebius

turns next to the interpretation of the Old Testament. In his treatment of
Old Testament texts, Eusebius further develops his understanding of the
Son as the image and mediator of God apart from the incarnation, which
he takes to be indicated in Col 1,1533 and 2Cor 4,434. Here Eusebius’ im-
age doctrine carries a different sense than we find in the earlier apologetic
works, where the idea often serves as a convenient parallel with Mid-
dle-Platonic cosmology. In the De ecclesiastica theologia Eusebius argues
that the Son, now that he has been revealed to the Church, can be seen
operating in the Old Testament as pre-incarnate mediator. Eusebius takes
Paul to be indicating the Son’s presence and activity in the Old Testament
in passages such as Gal 3,19f., which states that the law was “ordained
through angels by a mediator. Now a mediator involves more than one
party; but God is one”35. Reading Gal 3 together with 1Tim 2,5: “there is
one God and one mediator, Christ Jesus”, and other statements of Christ’s
presence in the Old Testament, Eusebius takes Paul to be saying that Christ
is the mediator of the law given to Moses and of the Old Covenant as a
whole. So it was the Son who appeared to Abraham36, and God said to
Moses “I am a jealous God”37 through the Son. For Eusebius, one of the
essential components of Christ’s revelation to the Church is the recognition
that God always conveys the knowledge of himself through the Son as a
mediator38 – that “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself”39
even before the incarnation.
Eusebius argues for the distinct existence of the pre-incarnate Son di-
rectly against Marcellus’ monistic view of God in the Old Testament40. As
a rule, Eusebius opposes Marcellus’ preference for interpreting Old Tes-
tament passages as referring to the incarnation (as opposed to the pre-
existent Son) – except for prophecies about Christ, which do refer to the
incarnation41 – because, Eusebius argues, the goal of the Old Testament
is primarily to teach monotheism against the polytheism of the nations42,
not the mystery of the Son, which was yet to be revealed in the New Testa-

33
Eus., e.th. I 20,13 (43f. K./H.).
34
Eus., e.th. I 20,14 (93 K./H.).
35
Eus., e.th. I 20,10 (91f. K./H.).
36
Gen 18,1-15.
37
Ex 20,5.
38
Eus., e.th. II 21 (130-132 K./H.).
39
2Cor 5,19; Eus., e.th. II 22 (132f. K./H.).
40
See Eus., e.th. II 18 (121-123 K./H.).
41
And which Eusebius treats at length in the Demonstratio evangelica.
42
With two qualifications: the Old Testament does not show the one God to be Father,
as he is revealed to be in the New Testament, and the Son is indeed present in the Old
Testament, though not universally recognized until the New Testament/Church (Eus.,
e.th. II 20f. [127-132 K./H.]).
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 441

ment43. The matter comes into focus in Eusebius’ response to Marcellus’

exegesis of Prov 844. Eusebius’ chief observation is that throughout the
chapter Wisdom speaks as a living and subsisting being and as a single
character or prÒswpon45. In other words, Wisdom speaks in her own proper
voice, as the pre-incarnate Son of God, not merely in a proleptic way as
the future-incarnate Christ. By contrast, Marcellus takes Prov 8,22 (“He
created me as the beginning of his ways”) to be referring specifically to the
incarnation. In Eusebius’ view, such an interpretation strains the obvious
sense of the text, in light of the fact that Wisdom speaks of her preexistent
life with God throughout the rest of the chapter46. Yet – equally significant
for his understanding of the Son’s divinity – Eusebius also rejects the notion
that Prov 8,22 indicates that the eternal Son was “created”, even in the
Origenist sense47. He points out that the Hebrew text does not read “he
created me”, but “he possessed me” (referring to Aquilla, Symmachus, and
Theodotio from Origen’s Hexapla), and so he opts for the metaphorical
meaning “establishes”. Prov 8 is thus a positive revelation, or “mystical
knowledge”, about the Son’s divine life, not a forecast of the incarnation48.
Considering Eusebius’ reputation as an avid Origenist and the disputed
status of Origen’s exegetical methods, it is especially ironic that Marcellus
is the one who over-allegorizes Prov 8, while Eusebius defends the plain
sense of the text49. Although later orthodox writers will prefer an economic
interpretation of Prov 8,22, the resemblance to Marcellus’ approach is only
partial. The economic exegesis of Gregory Nazianzen and (for the most part)
Cyril of Alexandria operates within a predominantly unitive Christological
framework, whereas in Marcellus and the later Antiochenes – and often
in Athanasius50 – the framework is typically dualist51, which makes for a
rather different exegetical result.
The Contra Marcellum and De ecclesiastica theologia contain several
other exegetical arguments from both the Old and New Testaments, in-
cluding a long discussion of the many names of the Son apart from and in

43
Eus., e.th. II 20 (127-130 K./H.).
44
Eus., e.th. III 1 (137f. K./H.).
45
A point he also makes about Jesus’ various statements in John 5f.
46
Eus., e.th. III 2 (138-145 K./H.).
47
Though cf. Eus., e.th. I 9 (67f. K./H.).
48
Eus., e.th. III 2 (138-145 K./H.).
49
He argues further that one should begin from what is clear, easily known, and fundamental
in the text and not inquire needlessly beyond the literal meaning; only then should one
pass over to the more divine things (Eus., e.th. III 3 [145-157 K./H.]) – an exegetical
approach that is arguably faithful to Origen anyway!
50
When the resemblance is exact in Athanasius, that only raises further questions about
Athanasius’ Christology.
51
See Marcell., fr. 41 (192 K./H.); Eus., e.th. II 3 (101f. K./H.). On Marcellus’ Christologi-
cal dualism, see Parvis, Marcellus of Ancyra (see note 18), 32.
442 Christopher A. Beeley

the incarnation, in order to counter Marcellus’ view that apart from the
incarnation the Son is only the internal Word of God and not distinctly
existing in his own right52.

The Mystery Revealed

All of the biblical evidence brought to bear in the De ecclesiastica theolo-

gia points to what Eusebius calls the revelation of the “mystery of God”.
When Eusebius claims that Marcellus has “denied the Son of God”53, he
means specifically that Marcellus has failed to grasp the mystery of Christ
revealed to the Church, which is the central message of the New Testament.
The mystery that has now been revealed is neither, as Marcellus claims,
the eternal Word internal to God’s being54, which even Jews and Greeks
believe that God possesses; nor is it the incarnation per se. Rather, the
mystery of Christ revealed in the incarnation is the only-begotten Son of
God, who also exists beyond the incarnation and is now, in Paul’s phrase,
“Christ in you”55. To be sure, Marcellus has a clear sense that the eternal
Word of God has become flesh in Jesus; but, in Eusebius’ view, Marcellus’
understanding of the divine monad “before and after” the incarnation and
the Word’s active extension only during (creation and) the incarnation
effectively detaches the Word’s eternal life from the revelation of Christ
to the Church. In order to preserve the unity and singularity of God,
Marcellus is forced to conceive of the Trinity according to an “economic
modalism”, and, equally troubling, his understanding of Christ is highly
dualist. Where Eusebius is able to maintain a close connection between
the divine economy and the eternal life of God, in which Christ reveals
the only-begotten Son who exists apart from the incarnation, Marcellus
downplays such connections and, consequently, the mysterious reality of
the incarnation, in which God the Son is truly present.
Eusebius gives a key summary of the revelation of the Son in both
Testaments: such examples are replete, he says,

52
Eus., e.th. I 20 (80-98 K./H.). E.g., in reply to Marcellus’ Logos doctrine, John 1 shows
God is Father; that the Word/Son is not God over all, but is also God; and the divinity
of Son vis-à-vis the Father (Eus., e.th. II 17 [120f. K./H.]). John speaks of the Word in
his gospel in order to connect the word that came to the prophets with the incarnate Son
(Eus., e.th. II 18 [121-123 K./H.]) – thus Eusebius gives a palpably less philosophical
reading than Marcellus, and anticipates modern arguments for a Jewish background for
John’s Logos doctrine.
53
Eus., e.th. I praefatio (62 K./H.).
54
Marcell., fr. 50 (194 K./H.).
55
Col 1,27; Eus., e.th. I 20,29 (94 K./H.). The “mystery” thus fully includes faith in the
one God over all, the Father of Jesus Christ, and the only-begotten Son of God, Jesus
Christ, distinct from the Father yet God from God and light from light (Eus., e.th. I 8
[66f. K./H.]).
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 443

throughout the divinely-inspired Scripture [in the Old Testament], through which
the men of God, illuminated by the divine Spirit, reveal the knowledge of the
only-begotten Son, which at that time was secret and escaped the notice of the
majority of the Jewish people. So 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, which his Church,
as if receiving some mystery that was long ago kept hidden in silence, sows
throughout the world […]: a mystery hidden for ages56.

Eusebius most commonly refers to this recognition of the central Christian

mystery as the Church’s “theology”, or “theologizing”, of the Son. Whereas
the prophets spoke the theology of the Son mystically (as in Prov 8), the
Church has now received “the grace of the theology concerning him as a
mystery long hidden, which it sows throughout the world”57. Moreover,
the only-begotten himself (especially in John’s gospel) has made known
the “theology concerning the Son”58, which is both the knowledge of the
only-begotten Son in the incarnate Christ, and through him the knowledge
of God the Father59. Eusebius writes in the preface to the De ecclesiastica
theologia that, although Marcellus has “denied the Son of God”, he will
provide instead “the theology of our Savior”60 – hence the title of the
work61. The central principles of Eusebius’ exegesis in the Contra Marcel-
lum and De ecclesiastica theologia combine to form “the theology of the
Son” both within and beyond the incarnation, which is the chief mystery
that God has revealed to the Church.

The “Theology of the Son”: Christ and the Trinity

Eusebius defines the theology of the Son in several summary passages near
the beginning of the De ecclesiastica theologia62. Above all, he says, the
Church confesses that Jesus Christ is the only and unique Son of God63:
“not according to the birth of the flesh he assumed”, which is the form of
a slave and the Son of Man, but “according to the birth that is from God
the Father himself before all ages and unknowable to all”64. At the heart

56
Eus., e.th. I 20,29 (94 K./H.); see also e.th. II 14.18 (114-118.121-123 K./H.).
57
Eus., e.th. I 20,29 (94 K./H.).
58
Eus., e.th. I 20,5 (83-86 K./H.).
59
Eus., e.th. I 20,5 (83-86 K./H.).
60
Eus., e.th. I praefatio (62 K./H.).
61
See also the introductory letter to Flacellus: Eusebius “presents the true theology con-
cisely and briefly” in ep. Flacc. (GCS Eusebius 34, 60,16f. Klostermann/Hansen). See
also Eus., Marcell. I 4,46 (27 K./H.); II 2,44 (43 K./H.). References to the revelation
or “theophany” of the Son are equally replete in the work by that name.
62
Eus., e.th. I 1-18 (62-80 K./H.), esp. e.th. I 2f.6f. (63-65 K./H.).
63
God gives the paternal glory and honor only to the Son (Eus., e.th. III 16 [174f. K./
H.]).
64
Eus., e.th. I 2 (63 K./H.).
444 Christopher A. Beeley

of the Church’s interpretation of Scripture – as both the chief datum it has

received and also the chief organizing principle of all interpretation – is
this recognition of Christ’s relationship with God the Father. It is the
divinity of the incarnate Christ and his eternal begetting from God the
Father65, which is uniquely known through the Son’s human status, rather
than simply his human status itself, that is the Church’s basic confession
of faith. Conversely, it is Christ’s eternal relationship with the Father that
constitutes and determines his divine identity. Because he is the only-be-
gotten Son and image of the Father’s divinity, the Son is also “God”, or
“only-begotten God”66, as befits an offspring (gšnnhma) of God or one
likened (¢fwmoiwmšnon) to his begetter67. So Eusebius argues that the same
God whom the Jews (and Marcellus) declare to be one is also “Father” of
his only-begotten Son. Eusebius thus reinforces the centrality of Father-
Son language for the Christian understanding of God, much as Origen
had done against the monarchians of his day. The revelation of the Son of
God in Christ, i.e., in the incarnation, is for Eusebius a revelation of the
eternal life of the Trinity, which exists and is fundamentally determined
as such beyond the incarnation.
In another summary passage, Eusebius writes that Christians confess
three fundamental things (Øpoke…mena) – a list that I believe is meant to
represent the ascending order of faith68: (1) the one from the seed of
David and the Virgin; (2) the Son of God who dwelt in the Virgin’s child,
preexisting and truly subsisting; and (3) God the Father of the Son, by
whom he was sent – again, as indicated in 1Cor 8,669. Thus “theology”
proceeds by (1) beginning with the man Jesus, the son of Mary, whom
Christians confess to be (2) “the Christ, the Son of God”, in the words
of Peter’s confession70, by whom they are enabled to know (3) God the
Father, whom the Son alone reveals as such71. Only by such a confession,
Eusebius argues, can one avoid the three cardinal errors of docetism (Christ
is divine but not really human), psilanthropism (Christ is human but not
divine), and modalism (Christ does not exist as a distinct being at all)72.

65
I use the term “eternal” advisedly here, aware that most interpreters believe that Eusebius
teaches that the Son is not eternally generated from God the Father. I will justify this
statement below, in the conclusion.
66
Eus., e.th. I 9 (67f. K./H.).
67
Eus., e.th. I 10,16f. (68,16f. K./H.).
68
Not a dualist Christology, as it might at first appear.
69
Eus., e.th. I 6 (64f. K./H.).
70
Mark 8 and par.; referred to in Eus., theoph. I 4. See also theoph. I 15: Christ calls
himself Son of Man so that we can become sons of God through the flesh he assumed.
71
So the glory of Christ, which the Son possesses from God the Father, is “seen outside the
body with a pure mind”, which is the acknowledgement of the divinity of the Son (Eus.,
e.th. I 20,4 [82f. K./H.]). See also e.th. I 7 (65 K./H.): the Son is “neither the same as
the body he assumed nor the same as God the Father”.
72
Eus., e.th. I 3 (63f. K./H.); see also e.th. I 7 (65 K./H.). In Eusebius’ mind, the error of
subordinationism is contained in that of psilanthropism.
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 445

By teaching the third error (and possibly the second), Marcellus falls short
of confessing the Christian faith in its most central aspect. Eusebius argues
at length against Marcellus’ claim that the Father and Son are “one and
the same thing” or a single “Father-Son”, that God the Father himself
became flesh73, that the Son does not himself exist or subsist apart from
the incarnation, but is only Word, and that apart from the economy God
therefore exists alone74.
Fundamental to Eusebius’ Christological vision is a deep sense of the
continuity between the fleshly Son of Man and the preexistent Son of
God – without thereby holding that Christ’s flesh pre-exists or is of the
same nature as the divine Son75, as the Apollinarians and the radical
Cyrillines would later be accused of teaching. Eusebius understands Christ
to be a single subject of existence76, who is both the Son of God “begot-
ten before all worlds” and also the incarnate Lord, which is, again, the
sense that he derives from 1Cor 8,6, Phil 2,5-7 and numerous other New
Testament texts. “Who came from heaven?”, Eusebius asks. “He him-
self – the light and Word and God the only-begotten Son”77. For Eusebius,
this confession is of the greatest significance for the salvation of believers,
since it is only through Christ, the only-begotten Son and image of God
through whom all things were made, that Christians come to know God
the Father78. Because the only-begotten Son alone reveals God the Father,
the Church has resolutely condemned Sabellianism in all its forms79. In
this regard, Eusebius’ Christology is heavily weighted toward the Son, by
contrast with Marcellus’ stress on the Word. It is hardly a lÒgoj-s£rx
doctrine, as Grillmeier maintained – but which, to be fair, one could derive
from the apologetic literature alone. Eusebius is neither lÒgoj-centered
(Platonically or Christianly), as he is often thought to be, nor is he op-
posed to the idea of Christ’s human soul. It would be more accurate to
say that his is an anti-lÒgoj-theology, or as Lienhard has suggested, a
“Son-theology”80.

73
Eus., e.th. I 1 (1-8 K./H.).
74
See also Eus., e.th. II 1 (99f. K./H.).
75
See Eus., theoph. III, esp. III 59 (154f. G./L.).
76
See theoph. III 61 (157-159 G./L.).
77
Eus., e.th. I 20,5 (83-86 K./H.).
78
Eus., e.th. I 13 (73f. K./H.): “He himself was the only-begotten Son of God, as it were in
a divine statue/image, the instrument of his body, winning the favor of the human race
by his teaching, healings, and the ineffable lessons of inspired wisdom […] right up to
the very gates of death. […] He underwent the fleshly economy, although he pre-existed
before it” (referring to Phil 2).
79
Eus., e.th. I 14 (74 K./H.). Thus I agree with Lyman’s observation that for Eusebius Christ
is one agent in two lives (Lyman, Christology [see note 26], 116), although I believe the
point can be made even more strongly.
80
Lienhard, Contra Marcellum (see note 12), 132.
446 Christopher A. Beeley

Eusebius holds together, as part of a single Christological principle,

Christ’s singular divinity and the full confession of the Trinity – what a
modern would call Christology and Trinitarian doctrine. His most deeply-
held conviction is that the mystery of God revealed in and by Jesus Christ
in the divine economy is the eternal life of the Trinity, which exists beyond
the economy81. This is one of his deepest points of disagreement with Mar-
cellus, who for his part insists just as pointedly that the Son (like the Spirit)
does not distinctly exist alongside the Father apart from the economy. By
confessing that Christ is the only-begotten Son of God, Christians come to
believe that the one God is the Father82, which distinguishes their theology
from that of both Jews and Greeks. Against the Greeks, Christians believe
that there is only one God, as indicated in the Old Testament; and against
the Jews, they recognize that the one God is the Father of Jesus Christ, as
indicated in the New Testament83. In this way, the unique Christological
revelation entails a unique theological revelation.
This means, in turn, that Eusebius’ understanding of the eternal life of
the Trinity is founded on the monarchy of God the Father84. Just as the
one God is the Father of Jesus Christ, so the Divinity is, in a primary sense,
the Father’s divinity; and it is the Father’s divinity that causes the Son to
subsist and which the Son uniquely shares85. Eusebius points specifically
to the monarchy of the Father in response to Marcellus’ radical monothe-
ism: because there is one divinity and one source and first principle (the
Father), there is only one God86. Yet, in addition to being the monotheistic
principle, the monarchy of the Father also gives rise to the divinity of the
Son as well. Because the Father generates the Son as the only-begotten
image of the Father’s divinity, the Son too is God – that is, both God and
Son; so that there is one God, the Father, and the Son, who is also God87.
81
Though not “around” or “apart from” the economy, so to speak: Eusebius does not
envision Christian theology taking place apart from the economy and biblical revelation,
in the epistemic sense, despite his apologetic use of philosophical motifs. On Eusebius’
overall Trinitarian perspective, see also Eus., Marcell. I 1 (1-8 K./H.).
82
Eus., e.th. I 2 (63 K./H.). Despite the criticisms of Athanasians ancient and modern,
Eusebius’ idea that the one God of all things is, in a primary sense, God the Father is
neither the result of mischievous subordinationism or a naïve Hellenism, but a simple
replication of the New Testament. In addition to 1Cor 8,6, discussed above, see Eph
4,6: “one God and Father of all, who is above all and through all and in all” (cited at
Eus., e.th. III 6 [163f. K./H.]).
83
Eus., e.th. I 8 (66f. K./H.).
84
An especially clear statement comes in Eus., theoph. I 23.27 (12f.17f. L.).
85
Eus., e.th. I 2 (63 K./H.). To emphasize the point, Eusebius adds “Father’s” and “alone”
to Col 2,9: “in him alone dwells the fullness of the Father’s divinity” (e.th. I 2 [63,26f.
K./H.]). It is an addition he makes regularly (see also Eus., e.th. III 21 [181f. K./H.];
Eus., Ps. 67,15-17 [PG 23, 701B Migne]; Ps. 73,10f. [860C M.]), but uniquely among
patristic sources and known New Testament variants.
86
Eus., e.th. I 2 (63 K./H.), citing Deut 4,35.
87
Eus., e.th. I 2 (63 K./H.). In a summary statement near the end of the De theophania,
Eusebius says the disciples preached that Christ was “God and Son of God and with the
Father before he came among us” (Eus., theoph. V 51 [256 G./L.]).
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 447

Because the Son possesses the Father’s divinity and “not a divinity that is
his own”, he is not without source (¢gšnnhtoj) and there are not two gods,
even as the Son also has “life in himself”, unlike anything other than the
Father (and possibly the Spirit). As Lyman has pointed out, such descrip-
tions of the Son’s essential likeness to the Father explicitly go beyond the
terms of current Middle Platonism as well as Origen88. The Son is both
entirely derivative of the Father for his existence, divinity, life, and will,
and is self-subsistent in himself, life in himself, goodness in himself, and
so on89. Eusebius thus maintains, as later orthodox Trinitarians will, that
the first principle of the Trinity is God the Father, who generates the Son
and Spirit, and that there is for this reason only one God.
Eusebius highlights the Son’s unique divinity in several ways. It will be
surprising to many conventional (Athanasian) interpreters of the fourth cen-
tury to know that Eusebius clearly distinguishes the Father-Son relationship
from God’s relationship to the rest of creation90. Creating and begetting,
he says, are two different things91; the Son does not have the same nature
as other creatures92; and the Son’s generation is incorporeal and transcends
both the nature of earthly generation and God’s creation of the kÒsmoj93.
On this point some may object that Eusebius also calls the Son one of the
creatures. In fact, Eusebius is content to say both that the Son is an offspring
and not a creature (ex nihilo, like everything other than the Trinity) and
that the Son is unique among the creatures (meaning anything produced
by the Father, which the Son plainly is)94. Eusebius thus uses the language
of creation in two clear and distinct senses. Nevertheless, one might point
out that Eusebius speaks of the Son’s relationship to the Father in terms
of participation95, which later pro-Nicenes restrict to relations between

88
Lyman, Christology (see note 26), 113f.
89
So the De Theophania – not unlike Athanasius’ De Incarnatione, with which there are
many parallels – seeks to prove the divinity of the Savior (esp. Eus., theoph. II 94 [124f.
G./L.]; V 1 [219 G./L.] etc.). Christians worship the divinity of the Word (Eus., theoph.
I 39.41 [57-59 G./L.]), and failure to worship the Word/Son is the primal sin of the Fall
(theoph. II 21.52 [89-91.104f. G./L.]).
90
Eus., e.th. I 8 (66f. K./H.): God is “Father” of the one and only Christ, but “God” of
the remaining creatures.
91
Eus., e.th. I 10 (68f. K./H.).
92
Eus., e.th. I 9 (67f. K./H.): because he is the only-begotten Son of God, he cannot be a
creature made ex nihilo, otherwise he would not be a Son; nor can he be the only-begot-
ten of God if he has the same nature as other creatures.
93
Eus., e.th. I 12f. (70-74 K./H.), which makes the argument for comparative incompre-
hensibility that Basil and Gregory Nazianzen will both employ. In the De theophania,
Eusebius states unequivocally that the Son/Word is beyond all things (all being and all
goodness) and beyond comprehension, and he alone is the God of truth (Eus., theoph.
I 4.21 [41f.45 G./L.]; II 13 [84f. G./L.]). Because the divine nature is simple and free,
the Son is simple and resembles the Father in all things; the Son is one/singular in his
essence, just like the Father (theoph. I 27.29 [48-50 G./L.]).
94
See esp. Eus., e.th. I 9 (67f. K./H.).
95
Eus., e.th. I 2 (63,25 K./H.): tÁj patrikÁj metous…aj.
448 Christopher A. Beeley

creatures and the Creator. Yet such differences of terminology alone tell
us little, without regard for the surrounding theological argumentation
that determines their meaning. Despite the fact that Eusebius’ terms do
not exactly match those of certain pro-Nicenes, the distinction between the
Son’s begetting from the Father and God’s creation of all creatures other
than the Son remains firm and consistent in his mature works. Eusebius’
interpretation of Prov 8,22 is especially significant in this connection. He
argues that Wisdom’s statement of her “creation” in this verse is so ex-
ceptional as to be unique among the Scriptures; and he flatly denies that
the verse shows that she is created, as we noted above.
Most often, Eusebius indicates the Son’s divinity simply by reference
to his unique generation from the Father: he is the “only-begotten” Son
and the unique image of God96, and consequently he possesses the Father’s
divinity, glory, and honor as only an offspring can – and is therefore God.
In accord with the Father’s eternal generation of the Son, Eusebius traces a
sequence of divine action in God’s dealings with creation, which runs from
the Father through the Son and the Spirit, similar to what we find later in
the Cappadocians. So the Father desires, and the Son sends the Spirit to the
disciples; the Father generates grace, the Son receives it from the Father, and
the Spirit from the Son, to bestow it to the disciples97. Again anticipating
the later Homoiousians and the Cappadocians, Eusebius even speaks of the
Son’s “natural relationship” to the Father (¹ prÕj tÕn patšra fusik¾ scšsij)98
and the “divine communion” (qeik¾ koinwn…a) proper to an only-begotten99.
Such a reading of Eusebius’ late works shows that he is much closer indeed
to Basil’s Contra Eunomium and Gregory Nazianzen’s Orationes than the
Athanasian version of fourth-century theology has led us to believe.

Conclusion

In spite of its widespread disregard, Eusebius’ anti-modalist Christology

establishes several key points that will prove to be lasting elements of or-
thodox theology. Most importantly, he locates the monarchy of God the
Father as the center of both Christology and Trinitarian theology. Building
on Origen’s work, yet going beyond him in several respects, Eusebius locates
both the unity and the differentiation of the Trinity in the monarchy of the
Father, and he likewise understands that a unitive view of Christ necessarily
involves the Father’s superiority to the Son in some sense100. Eusebius’ twin

96
The point on which Eusebius ends the work: Eus., e.th. III 21 (181f. K./H.).
97
Eus., e.th. III 5 (159-163 K./H.); see also e.th. III 6 (163f. K./H.).
98
Eus., e.th. I 10 (68,31-69,1 K./H.).
99
Eus., e.th. III 20 (181 K./H.).
100
For a comparison of this principle in four examples from the second to the fifth century,
see B.E. Daley, “One Thing and Another”. The Persons in God and the Person of Christ
in Patristic Theology, Pro Ecclesia 15, 2006, 17-46.
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 449

insight, which frustrated Marcellus to no end, was that in order to confess

the divinity of the incarnate Son, rather than merely the association of the
eternal Word with a human being, and consequently to uphold belief in
the Triune God in a way that goes beyond Jewish monotheism, requires a
strong sense of Trinitarian plurality. In other words, Eusebius recognizes the
paradox that Christian monotheism requires full Trinitarian subsistence. In
so doing, he lays important groundwork for the later Trinitarian doctrine
of writers like Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen101.
There are several telling ironies in Eusebius’ anti-Marcellan works. By
insisting on the full subsistence of the Son and the Spirit and their par-
ticipation in the Father’s divinity, Eusebius is able to preserve the divine
unity and simplicity more effectively than Marcellus. Because, for Eusebius,
the Father is rational in himself and the Son possesses the same qualities
and activities as the Father, both Father and Son can be said to share the
singular divine nature. In Marcellus’ scheme, however, God’s rationality
is restricted to the Word, in which case either the one God is composite,
the Word is something like an accident of the Father102, and/or (most
ironic of all) the Word is more mediatory and subordinate to the Father
than the Son is in Eusebius’ doctrine. I am well aware that most readers,
following Athanasius, have faulted Eusebius for holding an improperly
subordinate, mediatory view of the Son, and that Marcellus clearly intends
to defend the unity of God. Yet if we follow the logic of both schemes
to their conclusions, the picture looks rather different. For Eusebius, it is
the Son’s derivation from the Father that makes him a full sharer in the
divine nature; whereas, for Marcellus, the lÒgoj is restricted in significant
ways in order to fit within the simplicity of the one God. As a result, Euse-
bius’ doctrine provides for the cooperation or identity of action among
the Trinity, as will become important in later, pro-Nicene theology, more
successfully than Marcellus’ does. Eusebius thus resolves what we could
call Marcellus’ problem of Trinitarian distribution, by showing the way
toward a Trinitarian divine simplicity. Here again, it is Eusebius who lays
the groundwork for later pro-Nicene arguments. Gregory Nazianzen, for
example, directly echoes Eusebius’ anti-Marcellan argument that the Father
is “truly Father” and the Son is “truly Son”103 – an Origenist phrase found
in Asterius’ work which Eusebius defended against Marcellus104, and which
was later used in the Dedication Creed of Antioch 341105.

101
E.g., Gregory Nazianzen later echoes Eusebius’ argument that Jesus’ statements that
his will is dependent on the Father’s will refer to the will of the Son of God himself,
who preexisted and is now incarnate, not merely to the human or fleshly will of Jesus
as distinct from the will of the Son of God, as Marcellus would have it (Gr. Naz., or.
30,10-12 [SC 250, 242-252 Gallay]).
102
See Eus., e.th. I 1.5.15; II 6.8 (62f.64.74f.; 103f.106-108 K./H.).
103
Gr. Naz., or. 25,16 (SC 284, 196 Mossay).
104
Eus., Marcell. I 1,15 (4 K./H.)
105
Edition in: Biliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der Alten Kirche, ed. by A. Hahn/
G.L. Hahn, Hildesheim 31962, 184,24-26 (§154).
450 Christopher A. Beeley

It is also Eusebius who advances a stronger sense of the Son’s eternity,

despite the conventional view to the contrary. Against Marcellus’ claim
that the Son, or the active Word, extends outside of God only in the
economy106 – that is, against a purely economic view of the Son – Eusebius
argues that the Son was begotten of the Father before the cosmos and all
time. If we refrain from insisting that his terminology must exactly match
that of other writers (especially Athanasius), it will be apparent that, within
the terms of the debate, Eusebius is pushing for the Son’s eternal generation
from the Father against Marcellus’ confined sense of the economy – much
as Origen had taught. Here we may adapt Rowan Williams’ observation
about the doctrine of Arius, to say that, of the two theologians, it is argu-
ably Marcellus who mythologizes the life of the Word of God, not Eusebius,
as is usually assumed107; in which case, the association of Marcellus with
Arius by later orthodox writers is not all that fanciful.
Eusebius’ anti-Marcellan doctrine represented the theological position
of many Eastern bishops, and anti-Marcellan treatises continue to appear
well into the 370s108. Yet the analysis of Eusebius’ work provided here
shows that Eusebius’ influence extends even farther than the explicit Con-
tra Sabellianos literature. His influence on the Homoiousians of the 350s
and 360s is abundantly evident in his teaching of three divine Øpost£seij
who share a communion of nature, the singularity of the Father’s divin-
ity, the priority of Father-Son language over Creator-creature language,
and statements of the Father’s and the Son’s likeness in all respects. If
Athanasius, just out from under Marcellus’ wing, did not fully understand
Eusebius’s theology, Basil of Caesarea and Gregory Nazianzen did – in
some ways better than he understood himself109. Basing themselves in
Eusebius’ reformed Origenism, the Cappadocians developed and completed
the central principles of Eusebian theology in a new polemical situation,
while retaining a strongly anti-Marcellan emphasis, thus producing what
is in many respects a more comprehensive and satisfying Trinitarian pro-
gram than Athanasius’. It is more comprehensive because it makes clear
that the monarchy of the Father establishes both the ordered Trinitarian
distinctions and the unity and equality of divinity among the three (this
is clearest in Gregory Nazianzen), which is both an anti-Sabellian and

106
Eus., e.th. II 9 (108-110 K./H.).
107
R. Williams, Arius. Heresy and Tradition, London 1987.
108
See Lienhard, Contra Marcellum (see note 12), 181: “Most Easterners adhered to a
theology found most clearly in Eusebius of Caesarea and stated concisely, and irenically,
in the Fourth Creed of Antioch”. On fourth-century treatises against Sabellius, see also
pages 166-240 (chapters 7 and 8).
109
I have argued elsewhere that Basil and Gregory were for the most part unacquainted
with Athanasius’ work: see C.A. Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus on the Trinity and the
Knowledge of God. In Your Light We Shall See Light, Oxford Studies in Historical
Theology, Oxford 2008, 277-283.
 Contra Marcellum. Anti-Modalist Doctrine and Orthodox Christology 451

an anti-Arian argument, in that order110. By contrast, in Athanasius it

is unclear, if the Son is no longer a subordinate, mediating figure at all
but God fully present, why the Son should be called image at all beyond
the incarnation. In his own image doctrine, Athanasius seems to feel the
pressure to concede the point to Eusebius (and Origen), yet he is unable
to shake off this remnant of Marcellus’ thought.
Just as clearly, we see in Eusebius and Gregory (though somewhat less
so in Basil) the way in which theological content and method unavoidably
go together. The similarity lies in Eusebius’ hermeneutical and epistemo-
logical approach that he calls the “theology of the Son”. As I have argued
elsewhere, Gregory Nazianzen’s orthodox Trinitarianism is likewise based
on “theologizing” the Son and the Holy Spirit, in which “theology” is the
confession of the meaning of the divine economy and is summarized in the
doctrine of the Trinity111. If Eusebius sometimes appears to blur the lines
between God and creation (keeping in mind that most of our reactions
to such statements are Athanasian in origin), it is not because he confuses
the two ontological realities. It is because his chief impulse is to confess
God’s contact and presence with creation in Jesus Christ, which he takes
to be the overwhelming message of the Christian Gospel, rather than to
lobby for their strict separation, as befits Marcellus’ radical monotheism
and Christological dualism. By contrast, Marcellus – and consequently
certain passages in Athanasius – provide a powerful boost toward the
great divide between the “immanent” and the “economic Trinity”, and the
corresponding Christological dualism that has beset certain later periods
of Christian theology to such ill effect.
Through the Homoiousians, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril of Alexandria112,
and others, Eusebian Christology fed later orthodox tradition to a degree
that has gone largely unnoticed, due to the success of Athanasius’ polemic;
while Marcellan doctrine flowed into the stream of Athanasius, Eustathius,
the Paulinians (with whom Athanasius was also associated), and the later
Antiochene school113, to an extent that has also gone unrecognized. De-
spite his conventional reputation, Eusebius played an enormous role in the
development of orthodox Christology. As a result of Athanasius’ lingering

110
Gregory also repeats Eusebius’ emphasis that the Father is truly Father and the Son truly
Son (Gr. Naz., or. 25,16 [196 M.]).
111
On which see Beeley, Gregory of Nazianzus (see note 109), 194-200. Note also the
parallel between the sequential revelation of the Father and the Son in Eusebius’ work
(Eus., e.th. II 20 [127-130 K./H.]) and Gregory Nazianzen’s famous discussion of the
“order of theology” in his oratio theologica 5 (Gr. Naz., or. 31,25-27 [SC 250, 322-330
Gallay]).
112
On Cyril’s primary dependence on Gregory Nazianzen over Athanasius, see C.A. Beeley,
Cyril of Alexandria and Gregory of Nazianzus. Tradition and Complexity in Patristic
Christology, Journal of Early Christian Studies 17/4, 2009, forthcoming.
113
For a reevaluation of Marcellus’ associations in the mid-fourth century, see Parvis, Mar-
cellus of Ancyra (see note 18).
452 Christopher A. Beeley

debt to Marcellus and his narrow-minded assessment of Eusebius’ theol-

ogy, the tensions at work in Eusebius’ debate with Marcellus continued
to make themselves felt in the Christological debates that carried on for
the next four centuries.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG

In seinen späten Werken gegen Markell von Ankyra hat Euseb von Cäsarea wichtige
Grundprinzipen der Theologie entwickelt, die in der späteren Tradition als orthodox
rezipiert wurden. Im Gegensatz zu der Ansicht, seine Theologie sei entschieden subor-
dinatianisch und der nizänischen Richtung entgegengesetzt, zeigt eine Analyse seiner
Christologie ein deutlich differenzierteres Bild. Dieses Bild unterscheidet sich signifikant
von einem großen Teil der Sekundärliteratur, die Euseb hauptsächlich als Gegner des
Athanasius begreift. Der Artikel beschäftigt sich mit den Grundzügen und der exege-
tischen Grundlage der Christologie in Eusebs späten Werken Contra Marcellum, De
ecclesiastica theologia und De Theophania und verfolgt sie bei Autoren wie Gregor von
Nazianz und Kyrill von Alexandria, die später als Kronzeugen des nizänisch-orthodoxen
Glaubens herangezogen wurden.