"previous existence, substantial or otherwisea." It is plain from his own words, that Eusebius was here speaking of heretics who did not belong to the Church. He therefore meant the Gnostics: and the first description answers to the Cerinthians and Ebionites, the second to the Docetæ. He then says, that they did not go so far as the Sabellians, which may appear a strange assertion: but he explains himself to allude to that tenet of Sabellianism, by which the divinity of the Son was supposed to have no previous personal existence. It was merely an emanation, sent forth upon that express occasion by God, and which afterwards returned again, and was absorbed into the same fountain of Deity. In this respect Eusebius chose to consider the Gnostics as departing less from the orthodox faith and unquestionably the hypothesis of the Cerinthians or the Docetæ furnishes a strong collateral proof, that the Christians believed the divine nature in Christ to have a distinct personal existence. The emanations of the Gnostics were personal and substantial: and it was not till the third century that the divine nature of Christ was said to be a mere attribute or energy of God.

For the history of Sabellianism, I would refer to Ittigius, Appendix ad Diss. de Hæresiarchis, Diss. VI. de Photino, p. 426. Wormius, Historia Sabelliana, 1696. Fabricius, Bibl. Gr. vol. VIII. p. 335. Petavius, Theol. Dogmat. tom. II. p. 33, &c. Beausobre, vol. I. p. 533. Tillemont, Mémoires, vol. IV. p. 527. Lardner, Credibility, ad an. 247. §. VII. Waltherus, Jesus ante Mariam, (inter Dissert. Theol. Academ.)

* Contra Marcel. II. 1. p. 33. See de Eccles. Theol. I. 3. p. 62.