Eusebius
Could not find Eusebium in Logeion dictionaries.
Eusebium Proper-name noun: masculine genitive plural, Proper-name noun: masculine accusative singular of Eusebius
- a Latin rhetorician, Rufin. p. 191 Bait.
(Εὐσέβιος) of Caesareia, the father of ecclesiastical history, took the surname of Pamphili, to commemorate his devoted friendship for Pamphilus, bishop of Caesareia. He was born in Palestine about A. D. 264, towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Gallienus. He spent his youth in incessant study, and probably held some offices in the church of Caesareia. In A. D. 303, Diocletian's edict was issued, and the persecution of the Christians began. Pamphilus was imprisoned in 307, and was most affectionately attended on by Eusebius for two years, at the end of which time he suffered martyrdom and Eusebius fled to Tyre, where he was kindly received by the bishop Paulinus; but afterwards he removed to Egypt, and was imprisoned there in the course of the persecution. After his release he returned to Caesareia, and succeeded Agapius as bishop of that see about 315. He was summoned to the council of Nicaea in 327, and was there appointed to receive Constantine with a panegyrical oration, and to sit on his right hand. The course of events now made it necessary for him to form a distinct opinion on the relation of the first two Persons in the Trinity. There is no doubt that in many of his works, especially in those which he wrote before this time, but also in others, several expressions may be found inconsistent with each other, some of which can only be understood in a semiarian sense. Thus in the Demonstratio Evangelica he speaks of the Son as ἀφομοιώμενος τῶ Πατρὶ κατὰ παντὰ, ὃμοιος κατ̓ οὐσίαν. In the Praeparatio Evang. 4.3, he denies that the Son is like the Father ἁπλῶς ἀίδιος; for (he adds) ὁ Πατὴρ προϋπάρχει τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τῆς γενέδεως αὐτοῦ προὐφέδτηκε; only the Son is not created, and everything perishable must be separated from our conception of His nature. But with regard to all his earlier statements of doctrine, we must remember that till Arius's opinions, with their full bearings and consequences, were generally known, it was very possible for a person to use language apparently somewhat favourable to them, quite unintentionally, since the true fifth on the subject of our Lord's divinity had not yet been couched in certain formulae, of which the use after the controversy was mooted, became as it were the test of a man's opinions; nor had general attentio been called to the results of differences apparentl trifling. Eusebius's views on the subject seem to have been based on those of Origen, though indeed he deprecated the discussion of the question as above human comprehension, recommending men to be satisfied with the scriptural declaration, " So God loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beliexeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life;" "not," as he argues," whosoever knows how He is generated from the Father." But in the Ecclesiastica Theologia (after the rise of Arianism) he declares (1.8, 9.5) against those who reckon Christ among the κτίσματα, asserting God to be the Father of Christ, but the Creator of all other beings. Again: in the Ecclesiastical History (10.4) he calls Him αὐτοεός, and in other places uses language which proves him to have fully believed in His divinity. He was, however, of course disposed to regard Arius with mildness, and wrote to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his defence; arguing that though Arius had called Christ κτίσμα Θεοῦ τέλειον, He had added ἀλλ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν κτισμάτων. Thus he took his seat at the council of Nicaea not indeed as a partizan of Arius, but as anxious to shield him from censure for opinions whose importance, either for good or evil, he considered exaggerated. He accordingly appeared there as head of the moderate section of the council, and drew up a creed which he hoped would satisfy both the extreme parties, of which the Arian was favoured by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicaea; while their opponents were led by Alexander, whose deacon Athanasius, afterwards so famous, accompanied him to the council, and rendered him great service. This formula, which is to be found in Socrates (Hist. Eccl. 1.5), chiefly differs from the Nicene Creed in containing the expression πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (fromn Col. 1.15) instead of the deelaration that Christ is of the same substance with the Father, expressed in the adjective ὁμοούσιον; and the phrase "Very God of Very God" is not found in it after "God of God, Light of Light." This creed was accepted by Arius; but Alexander insisted on the addition of ὁμοούσιος, to which Constantine himself was favourable, and a majority of the council decreed its insertion. Eusebius at first hesitated to sign it, but afterwards did so; because, as he told the people of Caesareia in a pastoral letter explanatory of the proceedings at the council (Socrat. 1.5), the emperor had assured him that by the phrase need only be understood an assertion that the Son of God is wholly different from every created being; and that as His nature is entirely spiritual, He was not born from the Father by any division, or separation, or other corporeal process. Eusebius, however, always retained his mild feelings on this subject; for he wished to reinstate Arius in his church, in opposition to Athanasius, and he was intimate with his namesake, the bishop of Nicomedeia, a decided Arian. Eusebius had a very strong feeling against pictures of our Lord, and other novelties, which were then creeping into the Church. When Constantia, the widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine, requested him to send her such a picture, he refused, and pronounced all such representations worthy only of heathenism. (Vit. Const. 1. 3. p. 1069.) These pictures he destroyed when they came in his way, considering them inconsistent with 2 Cor. 5.10 ("Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more"); and he greatly objected (Hist. Eccl. 7.18) to a practice prevalent at Caesareia of offering up figures of Christ as an act of thanksgiving for recovery from sickness. It cannot be denied that in some of his objections to pictures of our Lord, he appears to overlook the practical importance of His Incarnation to our Christian life. Eusebius remained in favour with the imperial family till his death. He was offered the see of Antioch on the death of Eustathius, but declined it, considering the practice of translations objectionable, and, indeed, contrary to one of the canons agreed upon at the recent council of Nicaea. For this moderation he was exceedingly praised by Constantine, who declared that he was universally considered worthy to be the bishop not of one city only, but almost of the whole world. (Socrat. H. E. 1.18.) He died about A. D. 340; so that his birth, his elevation to high office, and his death, nearly coincide in time with those of his imperial patron. Assessment
The character of Eusebius, and his honesty as a writer, have been made the subject of a fierce attack by Gibbon, who (Decline and Fall, c. xvi.) accuses him of relating whatever might redound to the credit, and suppressing whatever would tend to cast reproach on Christianity, and represents him as little better than a dishonest sycophant, anxious for nothing higher than the favour of Constantine; and resumes the subject in his " Vindication" of the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the history. For the charge of sycophancy there is but little foundation. The joy of the Christians at Constantine's patronage of the true religion was so great, that he was all but deified by them both before and after his death; and although no doubt Niebuhr (Lectures on Roman History, Lect. lxxix. ed. Schmitz) has sufficiently shewn that Constantine, at least up to the time of his last illness, can only be considered as a pagan; yet, considering that his accession not only terminanted the persecution which had raged for ten years, but even established Christianity as the state religion, it is not surprising that Eusebius, like others, should be willing to overlook his faults, and regard him as an especial favourite of Heaven. As to the charge of dishonesty, though we could neither expect nor wish a Christian to be impartial in Gibbon's sense, yet Eusebius has certainly avowed (H. E. 8.2), that he omits almost all account of the wickedness and dissension s of the Christians, from thinking such stories less edifying than those which display the excellence of religion, by reflecting honour upon the martyrs. The fact that he avows this principle, at once diminishes our confidence in him as an historian and acquits him of the charge of intentional deceit, to which he would otherwise have been exposed. But besides this, Eusebius has written a chapter (Praep. Evang. 12.31) bearing the monstrous title,--"How far it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine for the advantage of those who require such a method." Now at first sight this naturally raises in our minds a strong prejudice against a person who, being a Christian in profession, could suppose that the use of falsehood can ever be justified; and no doubt the thought was suggested by the pious frauds which are the shame of the early Church. But when we read the chapter itself, we find that the instances which Eusebius takes of the extent to which the principle may be carried are the cases in which God is described in the Old Testament as liable to human affections, as jealousy or anger, " which is done for the advantage of those who require such a method." From this explanation it would appear that Eusebius may have meant nothing more than the principle of accommodating the degree of enlightenment granted from time to time to the knowledge and moral state of man kind; and his only error consists in giving the odious name of falsehood to what is practically the most real truth. (See Arnold, Essay appended to Sermons, vol. ii.) Works
The principal works of Eusebius are as follows : -- 1. Chronicons (χρονικὰ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας)
The Chronicons (χρονικὰ παντοδαπῆς ἱστορίας), a work of great value to us in the study of ancient history. For some time it was only known in a fragmentary state, but was discovered entire in an Armenian MS. version at Constantinople, and published by Mai and Zohrab at Milan, in 1818. It is in two books. The first, entitled χρονογραφία, contains a sketch of the history of several ancient nations, as the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes, Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, and Egyptians. It is chiefly taken from the πενταβίβλιον χρονολογικὸν of Africanus [Africanus, Sex. Julius], and gives lists of kings and other magistrates, with short accounts of remarkable events from the creation to the time of Eusebius. The second book consists of synchronological tables, with similar catalogues of rulers and striking occurrences, from the time of Abraham to the celebration of Constantine's Vicennalia at Nicomedeia, A. D. 327, and at Rome, A. D. 328. Eusebius's object in writing it was to give an account of ancient history, previous to the time of Christ, in order to establish belief in the truth of the Old Testament History, and to point out the superior antiquity of the Mosaic to any other writings. For he says that whereas different accounts had been given of the age of Moses, it would be found from his work that he was contemporary with Cecrops, and therefore not only prior to Homer, Hesiod, and the Trojan war, but also to Hercules, Musaeus, Castor, Pollux, Hermes. Apollo, Zeus, and all other persons deified by the Greeks. In the course of the work Eusebius gives extracts from Berosus, Sanchoniathon, Polyhistor, Cephalion, and Manetho, which materially increase its value. Of this Chronicon an abridgement was found by Mai in the Vatican library, at the end of a copy of Theodoret's Haereticae Fabulae, also in two parts, to the second of which is added by the abbreviator, a list of bishops of the five patriarchal sees, Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jersalem, and Constantinople, together with the bounidaries of these patriarchates as they existed in the ninth century. Editions
The Chronicons has been published by Mai, together with a commentary on St. Luke and twenty Quaestiones Exangelicae, also by Eusebius, in the Scriptorum Vaticanorum Nova Collectio, Rome, 1825. The Quaestiones are short disquisitions on certain points of the Gospel histories, e. g. why the evangelists give Joseph's genealogy rather than Mary's; in what sense our Lord is said to sit on David's throne, &c. Translations
The Chronicon was translated into Latin by Jerome, and published by J. J. Scaliger, Leyden, 1606, of which another enlarged edition appeared at Amsterdam, 1658. It was again published at Venice, in Armenian, Greek, and Latin, by J. Baptist Aucher, 1818. Mai and Zohrab's edition has been noticed above. The historical importance of their discovery is explained by Niebuhr, in his essay entitled Historischer Gewinn aus der Armenischen Uebersetzung der Chronik des Eusebius, published in his Kleine Shcriften. 2. Praeparatio Evangelica
The Praeparatio Evangelica (εὐαγγελικης ἀποδείξεως προπαρασκεύη) in fifteen books, inscribed to Theodotus, bishop of Laodiceia, is a collection of various facts and quotations from old writers, by which it was supposed that the mind would be prepared to receive the evidences of Christianity. This book is almost as important to us in the study of ancient philosophy, as the Chronicon is with reference to history, since in it are preserved specimens from the writings of almost every philosopher of any note whose works are not now extant. Translations
It was translated into Latin by George of Trebisond, and published at Treviso, 1480. Editions
The George translation is said to be a very bad one, and the Greek work itself first appeared at Paris. 1544, edited by Robert Stephens, and again in 1628, also at Paris, with a Latin version, by F. Viger, who republished his edition at Cologne, 1688. The Praeparatio Evangelica is closely connected with the Demonstratio Evangelica, written soon after it. 3. Demonstratio Evangelica
The Demonstratio Evangelica (εὐαγγελικγἠ ἀποδειξις) in twenty books, of which ten are extant, is a collection of evidences, chiefly from the Old Testament, addressed principally to the Jews. This is the completion of the preceding work, giving the arguments which the Praeparatio was intended to make the mind ready to receive. The two together form a treatise on the evidences of considerable ability and immense learning. Translations
The Demonstratio was translated into Latin by Donatus of Verona, and published either at Rome or Venice in 1498 and at Cologne in 1542. Editions
The Greek text appeared with that of the Praeparatio, at Paris, in the editions both of R. Stephens and Viger. 4. Ecclesiastical History
The Ecclesiastical History (ἐκκλησιαστικὴ ἱστορία), in ten books. The work was finished in the lifetime of Crispus, i. e. before 326, whom (10.9) he commemorates as θεοφιλέστατον καὶ κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς ὅμοιον. The history terminates with the death of Licinius, A. D. 324. When Constantine visited Caesareia, he offered to give Eusebius anything which would be beneficial to the Church there; Eusebius requested him to order an examination to be made of all documents connected with the history of martyrs, so as to get a list of the times, places, manner, and causes of their deaths, from the archives of the provinces. On this the history is founded; and of its general trustworthiness, with the limitation necessary from the principle of omission noticed above, there can be no doubt whatever. The first book consists of a discussion on our Lord's pre-existence, the prophecies respecting Him, the purpose of His revelation, and many facts relating to His life, together with the story of His correspondence with Abgarus or Agbarus, toparch of Edessa. [Agbarus.] The second bok begins the history of the Church after our Lord's Ascension, with an account of the death of Pilate, the history of Simon Magus, St. Peter's preaching at Rome, and the various labours of other apostles and disciples. The rest of the work gives an account of the principal ecclesiastical writers, heresies, and persecutions, including the betautiful stories of the martyrs at Lyons and Vienne, and the death of Polycarp. Many accounts of different scenes and periods in church history had been written before, as by Hegesippus, Papias, Irenaeus, and Clemens of Alexandria; but Eusebius was the first who reduced them all into one whole, availing himself largely of the labours of his predecessors, but giving a unity and completeness to them all. Editions
The History was turned into Latin by Rufinus, though with many omissions and interpolations, and published at Rome, 1474. The Greek text, together with that of the histories of Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Evagrius, appeared at Paris, 1549, edited by R. Stephens, and again at Geneva, 1612, with little alteration from the preceding edition. In this edition the text of Eusebius was that which had been published by Valesius at Paris, in 1659, with many emendations, after a careful recension of the MSS. in the Bibliotheque du Roi; and again at Amsterdam, with the other historians, in 1695. The same histories, with the remaining fragments of Theodorus and the Arian Philostorgius, were published at Cambridge in three folio volumes, 1720. The Cambridge edition was furnished with notes by W. Reading, and republished at Turin, 1746-48. More recent editions are Heinichen, in three volumes, Leipzig, 1827, which contains the commentary of Valesius and very copious notes, and another at Oxford in 1838, by Dr. Burton, regius professor of divinity in that University. Translations
The History has been translated into various languages : into English by Parker, 1703, by Cater, 1736, and by Dalrymple, 1778; into German, Eusebii Kirchengeschichte aus dem Griech. und mit Anmeroungen erlaütert von F. A. Stroth, 1778; into Italian in the Biblioteca degli Autori volgarizzati, Venice, 1547; and into French by Cosin, Paris, 1675. 5. De Martyribus Palaestinae
De Martyribus Palaestinae (περὶ τῶν ἐν Παλαιστιίνη μαρτυρησάντων), being an account of the persecutions of Diocletian and Maximin from A. D. 303 to 310. It is in one book, and generally found as an appendix to the eighth of the Ecclesiastical History. 6. Against Hierocles
Against Hierocles (πρὸς τὰ ὑπ̀ Φιλοστράτου εἰς Ἀπολλώνιον τὀν Τυανέα διὰ τὴν Ἱεροκλεῖ παραληφθεῖσαν αν̓τοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ Χριστου σὑγκρισιν). Hierocles had advised Diocletian to begin his persecution, and had written two books, called λόγοι φιλαληθεῖς, comparing our Lord's miracles to those of Apollonius of Tyana. (See Lactantius, Instit. 5.2, 3, 4.) In answering this work, Eusebius reviews the life of Apollonins by Philostratus. Editions
The Against Hierocles was published in Greek and Latin by F. Morell (among the works of Philostratus) at Paris, 1608, and with a new translation and notes by Olearius, Leipzig, 1709. 7. Against Marcellus
Against Marcellus (κατὰ Μαρκέλλου), bishop of Ancyra, in two books. Marcellus had been condemned for Sabellianism at Constantinople, A. D. 336, and this work was written by desire of the synod which passed sentence. Editions
The most important edition is by Rettberg, Götting. 1794-8. 8. De Ecclesiastica Theologia
De Ecclesiastica Theologia (περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Θεολογίας, τῶν πρὸς Μάρκελλον ἐλἐγχων Βίξλια γ́). This is a continuation of the Against Marcellus. Editions
The Against Marcellus and the De Ecclesiastica Theologia both were edited with a Latin version and notes by Montagu, bishop of Chichester, and appended to the Demonstratio Evangelica, Paris, 1628. 9. De Vita Constantini
De Vita Constantini, four books (εἰς τὸν Βιὸν τοῦ μακαριου Κωνσταντινου Βασιλέως λόγοι τέσσαρες), a panegyric rather than a biography. Editions
These lives have generally been published with the Ecclesiastical History, but were edited separately by Heinichen, 1830. 10. Onomasticon de Locis Hebraicis
Onomasticon de Locis Hebraicis (περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν τῆ θεία. γραφἧ) a description of the towns and places mentioned in Holy Scripture, arranged in alphabetical order. This is inscribed to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, as is also the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History. It was translated into Latin by Jerome, and published at Paris with a commentary, by Jacques Bonpère, 1659, and again at Amsterdam, by J. Cleves, 1707.
Besides these, several epistles of Eusebius are preserved by different writers, e.g. by Socrates (1.8) and Theodoret (1.12); and he wrote commentaries on various parts of Scripture, many of which are not extant. Editions
The first edition of all the works of Eusebius was published in Latin at Basle, in four volumes, ex variorum inteterpretatione, 1542, which reappeared at Paris in a more correct form, 1580. Since that time it has been usual to edit his works separately, and the chief of these editions have been given with the account of each work.
(See Cave, Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vol. 7.100.4; Neander, Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii. p. 787, &c.; Waddington, History of the Church, ch. vi.; Jortin, Eccl. Hist. iii. The last two contain interesting discussions on the religious opinions of Eusebius. [G.E.L.C]
of Dorylaeum, born at the end of the fifth century, began his public life aa layman, and held an office about the imperial court of Constantinople, which gave him the title of Agens in Rebus. One day, as Nestorius, then bishop of Constantinople, was preaching against the propriety of applying the term Θεοτόκος to the Virgin Mary, and waits maintaining at once the eternal generation of the divine Logos, and the human birth of the Man Jesus, a voice cried out, "No, the Eternal Word Himself submitted to the second birth." scene of great confusion followed, and an active opposition to the Nestorian doctrine began. There is little doubt that the voice proceeded from Eusebius. (See the question discussed by Neander Kirchengesch. vol. ii. p. 1073, note.) On another occasion, he produced in church an act of accusation against Nestorius, whom he denounced as reviving the heresies of Paul of Samosata. (Leontius, contra, Nestorian. et Eutych. iii.) The interest which he took in this controversy probably induced him to alter his profession, and to enter into holy orders. He afterwards became bishop of Dorylaeum. a town in Phrygia on the river Thymbrius (a feeder of the Sangarius), not far from the Bithynian frontier. In this office he was among the first to defend against Eutyches the doctrine of Christ's twofold nature, as he had already maintained against Nestorius the unity of His person. He first privately admonished Eutyches of his error; but, as he failed in convincing him, lie first denounced him at a synod summoned by Flavius, bishop of Constantinople, and then proceeded to the council which Theodosius had summoned to meet at Ephesus, to declare the Catholic belief on the point mooted by Eutyches. The assembly met A. D. 449 under the presidency of Dioscurus, bishop of Alexandria, a partizan of Eutyches. It was disgraced by scenes of the greatest violence, which gained for it the title of σύνοδος λῃστρική, and besides sanctioning the monophysite doctrine, it decreed the deposition of Eusebius. But Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, interfered and prevailed upon Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to convene another general council to revise the decrees of this disorderly assembly. It met at Chalcedon, A. D. 451, and Eusebius presented a petition at it addressed to Marcian and his colleague Valentinian. He was restored to his see, and the doctrine of Eutyches finally condemned. A Contesltaio adverusus Nestorium by Eusebius is extant in a Latin translation amongst the works of Marius Mercator, part ii. p. 18. There are also a Libellsus adversns Eutycheten Synodo Contantinopolitano oblatus (Concil. vol. iv. p. 151), Libellus adversus Dioscurum Synodo Chalcedonensi oblatus (ib. p. 380), and Epistola ad Marcianum Imperatorem (ib. p. 95), (Evagrius, Hist. Eccl. 2.4; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, l.c. and vol. ii. p. 959.) [G.E.L.C]
of Emisa born of a noble family at Edessa in Mesopotamia at the end of the third century. He was a man of considerable learning, having received instructions from Eusebius of Caesareia and other teachers of high repute. he went to Alexandria, that he might avoid ordination, and devote himself to philosophy, but afterwards removed to Antioch, became intimate with Flaccillus, its bishop, and was ordained. At this time Athanasius was deposed from the see of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Nicomedeia, then bishop of Constantinople, wished to instal his namesake into the vacant office. He wisely declined the questionable honour, knowing that the Alexandrians were too warmly attached to Athanasius to tolerate any other patriarch. He accepted, however, the see of Emisa in Syria (the city from which Elagabalus had been chosen emperor by the soldiers); but on proceeding there to take possession, he was driven away by a tumultuous mob, who had heard a report of his being a sorcerer, based upon the fact that he was fond of astronomical studies. He fled to Laodiceia, and lived with George, bishop of that place, by whose exertions he was afterwards restored to Emisa. He was a great favourite with the emperor Constantius, whom he accompanied on some military expeditions. He died at Antioch, about A. D. 360. His enemies accused him of Sabellianism, but the truth of the charge is denied by Sozomen (3.5). Works
Eusebius wrote several books enumerated by Jerome (de Script. 90), e. g. a treatise against the Jews, Homilies, &c. Extant works attributed to Eusebius
Some homilies on the Gospels, and about fifty on other subjects, are extant under his name; but they are probably spurious, and of more recent date. Editions
They were published at Paris, 1575, and at Antwerp, 1602. Confusion with Eusebius of Caesareia
Some of the homilies ascribed to Eusebius of Caesareia, are attributed to this Eusebius. [G.E.L.C]
MAGISTER SORINIORUM, one of the commission of Nine appointed by Theodosius in A. D. 429 to compile a code upon a plan which was afterwards abandoned for another. [Diodorus, vol. i p. 1018.] [J. T. G.]
of Myndus in Caria, a distinguished New Platonist and contemporary of Eunaplus, who mentions him (p. 48, ed. Boissonade), and ranks him in what is called the golden chain of New Platonists. Works
Stobaeus, in his Sermones, has preserved a considerable number of ethical fragments from the work of one Eusebius, whom some consider to be the same as the New Platonist, whereas others are inclined to attribute them to a Stoic of that name. Further Information
Wyttenbach, ad Eunap. p. 171. [L.S]
of Nicomedeia, the friend and protector of Arius, was maternally connected, though distantly, with the emperor Julian, and born about A. D. 324. He was first bishop of Berytus (Beyrout) in Syria, and then of Nicomedeia, which Diocletian had made his residence, so that it was in fact the capital of the Eastern empire till Constantine fixed his court at Byzantium. He first comes under the notice of history by taking the part of Arius after his excommunication by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. [Arius.] He wrote a defence of the heretic to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, and the letter is preserved in Theodoret (1.6). Eusebius states in it his belief that there is one Being Unbegotten and one Begotten by Him, but not from his substance, having no share in the nature or essence of the Unbegotten, but yet πρὸς τελείαν ὁμοιότητα διαθέσεως τε καὶ δυνάμεως τοῦ Πεποιηκότος γενόμενον.
So warmly did Eusebius take part with Arius, that the Arians were sometimes called Eusebians; and at the Nicene council he exerted himself vigorously against the application of the term ὁμοούσιος to the Son. But his opposition was unsuccessful, the Homoousians triumphed, and Eusebius joined his namesake of Caesareia in affixing his signature to the Creed, though he took the word in a sense which reduces it merely to ὅμοιος κατ̓ οὐσίαν.
He declined, however, to sign the anathema which the council issued against Arius, though not, as he says in the petition which he afterwards presented to the bishops, "because he differed from the doctrine as settled at Nicaea, but because he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed to him." (Soezom. 2.15.) But very soon after the council had broken up, Eusebius shewed a desire to revive the controversy, for which he was deprived of his see and banished into Gaul. On this occasion Constantine addressed a letter to the people of Nicomedeia, censuring their exiled bishop in the strongest manner, as disaffected to his government, as the principal supporter of heresy, and a man wholly regardless of truth. (Theodor. Hist. Eccl. 1.20.) But he did not long remain under the imperial displeasure. Constantia, the emperor's sister, was under the influence of an Arian presbyter, and was thereby induced to plead in favour of that party with her brother, and one result of her interference was the restoration of Eusebius to his see; and he soon so completely regained Constantine's favour, as to be selected to administer baptism to him in his last illness. His Arian feelings however broke out again. He procured the deprivation ot Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and, if we may believe Theodoret (1.21), by suborning a woman to bring against him a false accusation of the most infamous kind He was an active opponent of Athanasius, and exerted himself to procure the restoration of Arius to the full privileges of churchmanship, menacing Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, with deposition unless he at once admitted him to the holy communion, in which he would have succeeded but for the sudden death of Arius. Soon after this Alexander died, and Eusebius managed to procure his own election to the vacant see, in defiance of a canon against translations agreed to at Nicaca. IIe died about A. D. 342.
Though Eusebius lies under the disadvantage of having his character handed down to posterity almost entirely by the description of theological enemies, yet it is difficult to imagine that he was in any way deserving of esteem. His signature to the Nicene creed was a gross evasion, nor can he be considered to have signed it merely as an article of peace, since he was ever afterwards a zealous oppotent of its principles. It can scarcely be doubted that he was worldly and ambitious, and if Theodoret's story above referred to be true, it would be horrible to think that a Christian bishop should have been guilty of such gross wickedness. At the same time, considering the entire absence of the critical element in the historians of that age, the violent bitterness of their feelings on subjects of theological controversy, and the fact that Theodoret wrote many years after Eusebius's death, we shall be slow to believe in such an accusation, which rests only on the authority of the most vehement of the church historians of the time, while Socrates, the most moderate and least Orednlous, merely says (1.18), that Eustathius was deposed nominally for Sabellianism, " though some assign other causes;" and Sozomen (2.18) tells us, that some accused Eustathius of leading an irregular life, but does not hint that this charge rested on a wicked contrivance of Eusebius. Athanasius himself gives another cause for the deposition of Eustathius--that Eusebius had accused him of slandering Helena, the mother of Constantine. (Athan. Hst. Ari. § 5.) We regret in this instance, as in others, that we have not the complete work of Philostorgius, the Arian historian, who, however, in one of his remaining fragments, does not hesitate to attribute miracles to Eusebius. (Waddington, Church Hist. ch. vii.) Athanasius (Orat. ii.) considers him as the teacher rather than the disciple of Arius; and afterwards, when the Arians were divided among themselves into parties, those who maintained the perfect likeness which the substance of the Son bore to that of the Father (Homoiousians) against the Consubstantialists, on the one hand, and the pure Arians, or Anomoians, on the other, pleaded the authority of this Eusebius. The tenets of this party were sanctioned by the Council of Seleuceia, A. D. 359. (Theodor. l.c. ; Sozom. l.c.; Socrates, 2.5; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i.; Neander, Kirchengeschichte, vol. ii. p. 773, &c.; Tillemont, sur les Ariens, art. 66; see also an encyclical letter from the synod of Egyptian bishops to be found in Athan. Apol.c. Ar. § 10.) [G.E.L.C]
surnamed Scholasticus, a Greek historian who lived about A. D. 400, for he is said to have been an eye-witness of the war of the Romans against Gainas, king of the Gotlls. He was a follower of Troilus, and wrote the history of the Gothic war, in hexameter verse, in four books. His work is said to have been very popular at the time, but has not come down to us. (Socrat. H. E. 6.6; Niceph. H. E. 13.6.) [L.S]
an active champion of orthodoxy during the troubles which agitated the church in the middle of the fourth century, was a native of Sardinia, passed his early life as an ecclesiastical reader at Rome, and in A. D. 340 was, by Pope Julius, ordained bishop of Vercelli, where, although an utter stranger, he in a very brief space acquired the love and respect of all by the simplicity of his life, and by the interest Which he manifested in the spiritual welfare of his flock and his clergy. The latter he was wont to assemble in his house and retain for long periods, living with them in common, and stimulating them by his example to acts of devotion and self-denial. This is said to be the first instance upon record of an attempt to combine the duties of an active priesthood with monastic observances, and is belived to have led the way to the institution of regular canons, and to have suggested many of the principles upon which cathedral establishments were formed and regulated. Eusebius, in A. D. 354, at the request of Liberius, undertook, in company with Lucifer of Cagliari and the deacon Hilarius, an embassy to Constantius, by whom the persecution of Athanasius had been sanctioned. In consequence of their urgent representations the council of Milan was summoned the following year, where Eusebius pleaded the cause of the true faith with so much freedom and energy, that the Arian emperor, we are told, in a transport of rage drew his sword upon the orator, whom he banished on the spot to Scythopolis, a city in the Decapolis of Syria. From thence he was transported into Cappadocia, and afterwards to the Thebaid, where he remained until restored to liberty by the edict of Julian, published in A. D. 362, pronouncing the recall of the exiled prelates. Repairing to Alexandria, in compliance with the request of Athanasius, he was present at the great council (of 362), and his name is appended to the proceedings, being the only signature expressed in Latin characters. From Alexandria, Eusebius proceeded to Antioch, where he attempted in vain to heal the dissensions excited by the election of Paulinus; and after visiting many churches in the East, returned at length to his own diocese, where he died, according to St. Jerome, in A. D. 370. Works
We possess three Epistolae of this father. 1. Ad Constantium Augustum.
2. Ad presbyteros et plebes ItaliaeWritten on the occasion of his banishment, to which is attached Libellus facti, a sort of protest against the violent conduct of the Arian bishop Patrophilus, who was in some sort his jailor during his residence at Scythopolis. 3. Ad Gregorium Episc. Hisp.
found among the fragments of Hilarius (11.5). Other Works
He executed also a translation of the commentary drawn up by his namesake, Eusebius of Caesareia, on the Psalms. Edition of the Evangelists
an edition of the Evangelists, from a copy said to be transcribed by his own hand, preserved at Vercelli. Editions
Published at Milan, 4to. 1748, by J. A. Irico. Editions
The above-mentioned letters are given in the Bibl. Patr. Max., Lugdun. 1677, vol. v. p. 1127 ; in the Bibl. Patr. of Galland, vol. v. p. 78, and in all the larger collections of the fathers. Further Information
Hieron. de Viris Ill. 100.96. [W.R]
(Εὐσέβιος). (1) Pamphĭli. One of the most distinguished of the earlier Christian writers, the friend of Constantine, born in Palestine, probably at Caesarea, about A.D. 264. He pursued his studies at Antioch, and is believed to have received holy orders from Agapius, bishop of Caesarea. After having been ordained presbyter, he set up a school in his native city, and formed an intimate acquaintance with Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea, who suffered martyrdom under Galerius, A.D. 309, and in memory of whose friendship he added to his name the term Pamphili—i. e. (the friend) of Pamphilus. After the martyrdom of his friend he removed to Tyre, and thence to Egypt, where he himself was imprisoned. On his return from Egypt, he succeeded Agapius in the see of Caesarea, A.D. 315. In common with many other bishops of Palestine, he at first espoused the cause of Arius; but at the Council of Nice, in 325, where the emperor Constantine assigned to Eusebius the office of opening the session of the assembly, the opinions of the heresiarch were condemned. He is said, however, to have raised some objections to the words “consubstantial with the Father,” as applied to the Son in the Nicene creed. His intimacy with his namesake Eusebius , bishop of Nicomedia, who openly espoused the cause of Arius, led him also to favour the same, and to use his influence with the emperor for the purpose of reinstating Arius in the Church, in defiance of the opposition of Athanasius. The party to which he attached himself were called Eusebians, from their leader Eusebius of Nicomedia, and they seem to have acted in a great degree through hostility towards Athanasius and his supporters, as they did not, as yet, openly advocate the objectionable tenets of Arius, who had himself apparently submitted to the decrees of the Council of Nice. Eusebius was deputed by the Council of Tyre to defend before Constantine the judgment which it had passed against Athanasius. The part which he took in this controversy caused him to be stigmatized as an Arian, though it appears that he fully admitted the divinity of Christ. He was, however, unwilling to believe him συναΐδιος or “co-eternal” with the Father. He was much in favour with Constantine, with whom he maintained a correspondence. He died soon after his imperial patron, in 339 or 340.
Eusebius was one of the most learned men of his time. He had read all sorts of Greek authors, whether philosophers, historians, or divines, of Egypt, Phoenicia, Asia, Europe, and Africa. All his studies were directed towards the religion which he professed, and if he cultivated chronology, it was with the view of establishing on a solid basis the confidence to which the historical books of the Old Testament present a claim. He exhibited the fruits of his researches in a Chronicle, or Universal History (Παντοδαπὴ Ἱστορία), divided into two books. In the first of these, to which he gave the name of “Chronography” (Χρονογραφία), he relates the origin and the history of all nations and empires, from the creation of the world down to A.D. 325. In this first portion of the work, Eusebius introduced extracts from various historical writers whose productions are now lost, such as Alexander Polyhistor, Berosus, Amydenus, Manetho, etc. The second part, entitled “Chronical Canon” (Χρονικὸς Κανών), consisted of synchronistic tables, giving, by periods of ten years each, the names of sovereigns, and the principal events which had taken place, from the call of Abraham (B.C. 2017). In compiling this part of his labours Eusebius availed himself of the Chronography of Sextus Iulius Africanus, which he inserted almost entire in his Canon, completing it by the aid of Manetho, Iosephus, and other historians. This he continued also to his own times. We possess a Latin translation of this chronicle, made by St. Jerome; it is not, however, a simple version, since this father continued the dates down to the year 378, and made several changes also in the first part of the work. The Greek text itself is lost; and though Georgius Syncellus has inserted many fragments of it in his Chronicle, and Eusebius himself has done the same in his Praeparatio Evangelica, the remembrance of this original text was so far lost, that doubts began to be entertained whether that of the first book had ever existed, some critics being persuaded that Eusebius had written no other chronological work besides his Canon. Joseph Scaliger, however, undertook to reconstruct the first book of the work, by uniting all the fragments scattered throughout the writings of the various authors to whom allusion has been made. The whole subject has at length been cleared up in later times, and all uncertainty on this point has been put completely to rest since 1792, when an Armenian of Constantinople, named Georgius Iohannis, discovered an Armenian translation of the entire work. The first book of the Chronicle of Eusebius , with which we are made acquainted through the medium of this translation, is preceded by a preface, in which the author gives an account of the plan and difficulty of his undertaking. It is divided into forty-eight chapters, of which the first twenty-two embrace the chronology of the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes, Lydians, Persians, Hebrews, and Egyptians, comprehending under the latter head the dynasty of the Ptolemies. The remaining chapters, from the twenty-third to the forty-eighth, are devoted to the chronology of the Greeks and Romans, down to the time of Iulius Caesar.
Eusebius was also the author of an Ecclesiastical History (Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία), in ten books, from the origin of Christianity down to A.D. 324, a year which immediately preceded the triumph of the Catholic church over Arianism. This history was translated into Latin by Rufinus, a priest of Aquilea, in the fourth century, who made, however, retrenchments as well as additions, and added a supplement in two books, which extends to the death of Theodosius the Great.
The other works of Eusebius which have relation to the department of ecclesiastical history are the following: (1) Περὶ τῶν ἐν Παλαιστίνῃ Μαρτυρησάντων, “Of those who suffered martyrdom in Palestine.” The period referred to is the persecution of Dioclesian and Maximin, from 303 to 309.
(2) Λόγος Τριακονταετηρικός, “Thirty-year Discourse,” i. e. an eloge on Constantine, pronounced in the thirtieth year of his reign, A.D. 335.
(3) Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ Θεὸν Βίου τοῦ Μακαρίου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ Βασιλέως. A life of Constantine, in four books.
(4) Τῶν Ἀρχαίων Μαρτύρων Συναγωγή, “A Collection of Ancient Martyrs.” This work is lost, but many fragments have been preserved by the legendary writers of subsequent ages.
(5) A life of Pamphilus, of which there remains a solitary fragment.
(6) Περὶ τῶν κατὰ Διαφόρους Καιροὺς ἐν Διαφόροις Πόλεσιν Ἀθλησάντων Ἁγίων Μαρτύρων, “Of the holy martyrs that have contended for the faith at various times and in various places.” Another work of Eusebius forms the principal one of his theological writings. This is his
(7) Εὐαγγελικῆς Ἀποδείξεως Προπαρασκευή, or Praeparatio Evangelica. This work, though its subject is one entirely sacred in its nature, yet contains a great number of valuable notices respecting the mythology of the pagan nations, and the philosophy of the Greeks in particular. We find in it, also, numerous passages taken from more than four hundred profane writers, and in this list are many whose productions are now lost. The Praeparatio Evangelica is addressed to Theodotus, bishop of Laodicea, and is divided into fifteen books. To prepare his readers for a demonstration of evangelical truths by reasons purely philosophical, and, by collecting together a mass of citations drawn from profane authors, to show how far superior Christianity is to all the systems of the pagan world—such is the object of Eusebius in the work under consideration. In the first six books he proves the futility of the heathen doctrines; the nine following ones develop the motives which have induced the followers of Christianity to prefer to them the Jewish system of theology as contained in the Old Testament. One must not omit another work of Eusebius , entitled
(8) Περὶ τῶν Τοπικῶν Ὀνομάτων ἐν τῇ Θείᾳ Γραφῇ, “Of the places mentioned in the sacred writings.” It was in two books. The second book, which treats of Palestine, has alone reached us; we have it in Greek, and also in a Latin version by St. Jerome. Still another work of Eusebius ,
(9) Θεοφάνεια, in four books, was discovered in 1839 by Tattam in an Italian monastery. Editions of the work on chronology are that of Scaliger (Leyden, 1659), and that of Mai and Zohrab (Milan, 1818). The best editions of the Ecclesiastical History are that of H. Stephens (Paris, 1544), reprinted with the Latin version of Christophorson, at Geneva, 1612; that of Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827); Burton (Oxford, 1838; reprinted with an introduction by W. Bright, 1872); and that of Migne in the Patrologia GraecoLatina, vols. xix.-xxiv. (1857-66). The life of Constantine accompanies the first of these. The last edition of the entire work of Eusebius is that of Dindorf, in 4 vols. (Leipzig, 1867-71), unfinished. There is a translation of Eusebius in Clark's Theological Library. See Schaff, Church History (ii. 872-9).
(2) A native of Emesa, surnamed Pittăcus, slain in 554 by order of the emperor Gallus , and to whom Ammianus Marcellinus (xiv. 7) gives the title of concitatus orator.
(3) A native of Myndus, in Caria, a contemporary of the preceding. Eunapius makes mention of him in the life of Maximus; and, according to Wyttenbach, he is the same with a third Eusebius , of whom Stobaeus has left us two fragments.