PROLEGOMENA.
THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF
EUSEBIUS OF C'SAREA.
CHAPTER I.
THE LIFE OF EUSEBIUS.
§ 1. Sources and Literature.
Accents, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the
bishopric of C'sarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4)
which is unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E.
III. 2, IV. 23) and had exceptional opportunities for producing a full
and accurate account of Eusebius' life; the disappearance of his work
is therefore deeply to be regretted.
Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the works
of Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, Jerome, and other writers
of his own and subsequent ages, to many of which references will be
made in the following pages. A collection of these notices, made by
Valesius, is found in English translation on p. 57 sq. of this volume.
The chief source for a knowledge of Eusebius' life and character is to
be found in his own works. These will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq.
Of the numerous modern works which treat at greater or less length of
the life of Eusebius I shall mention here only those which I have found
most valuable.
VALESIUS: De vita scriptisque Eusebii Diatribe (in
his edition of Eusebius' Histaria Eccles.; English version in Cruse's
translation of the same work). CAVE: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95-144
(ed. H. Cary, Oxf. 1840).
TILLEMONT: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39-75 (compare also his account of
the Arians in vol, VI.). STROTH: Leben and Schriften des Eusebius (in
his German translation of the Hist. Eccles.). CLOSS: Leben and
Schriflen des Eusebius (in his translation of the same work).
DANZ: De Eusebio C'sariensi, Historion of the sam'
Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide historica recte rians in vol, VI.).and
most val'stimanda, Cap. II.: de rebus ad Eusebii vitam pertinentibus
(pp. 33-75).
STEIN: Eusebius Bischof von C'sarea. Nach seinem
Leben, seinen Schriften, and seinem dogmatischen Charakter dargestellt
(Wurzburg, 1859; full and valuable). BRIGHT, in the introduction to his
edition of Burton's text of the Hist. Eccles. (excellent).
LIGHTFOOT (Bishop of Durham): Eusebius of Cesarea,
in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. II. pp.
308-348. Lightfoot's article is a magnificent monument of patristic
scholarship and contains the best and most exhaustive treatment of the
life and writings of Eusebius that has been written.
The student may be referred finally to all the
larger histories of the Church (e.g. Schaff, vol. III. 871 sqq. and
1034 sq.), which contain more or less extended accounts of Eusebius.
§ 2. Eusebius' Birth and Training. His Life in Ca'sarea until the
Outbreak of the Persecution.
Our author was commonly known among the ancients as
Eusebius of C'sarea or Eusebius Pamphili. The former designation arose
from the fact that he was bishop of the church in C'sarea for many
years; the latter from the fact that he was the intimate friend and
devoted admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter of C'sarea and a martyr. Some
such specific appellation was
4
necessary to distinguish him from others of the same name. Smith and
Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography mentions 137 men of the first
eight centuries who bore the name Eusebius, and of these at least forty
were contemporaries of our author. The best known among them were
Eusebius of Nicomedia (called by Arius the brother of Eusebius of
C'sarea), Eusebius of Emesa, and Eusebius of Samosata.
The exact date of our author's birth is unknown to
us, but his Ecclesiastical History contains notices which enable us to
fix it approximately. In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata
attempted to revive again in his day (<greek>kaq</greek>
<greek>hmas</greek>) the heresy of Artemon. But Paul
of Samosata was deposed from the episcopate of Antioch in 272, and was
condemned as a heretic at least as early as 268, so that Eusebius must
have been born before the latter date, if his words are to be strictly
interpreted. Again, according to H. E. III. 28, Dionysius was bishop of
Alexandria in Eusebius' time (<greek>kaq</greek>
<greek>hmas</greek>). But Dionysius was bishop from 247 or
248 to 265, and therefore if Eusebius' words are to be interpreted
strictly here as in the former case, he must have been born before 265.
On the other hand, inasmuch as his death occurred about 340, we cannot
throw his birth much earlier than 260. It is true that the references
to Paul and to Dionysius do not prove conclusively that Eusebius was
alive in their day, for his words may have been used in a loose sense.
But in H. E. VII. 26, just before proceeding to give an account of Paul
of Samosata, he draws the line between his own and the preceding
generation, declaring that he is now about to relate the events of his
own age (<greek>thn</greek> <greek>kaq</greek>
<greek>hmas</greek>). This still further confirms the other
indications, and we shall consequently be safe in concluding that
Eusebius was born not far from the year 260 A.D. His birthplace cannot
be determined with certainty. The fact that he is called "Eusebius the
Palestinian" by Marcellus (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), Bash (Lib.
ad. Amphil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 29), and others, does not prove that he
was a Palestinian by birth; for the epithet may be used to indicate
merely his place of residence (he was bishop of C'sarea in Palestine
for many years). Moreover, the argument urged by Stein and Lightfoot in
support of his Palestinian birth, namely, that it was customary to
elect to the episcopate of any church a native of the city in
preference to a native of some other place, does not count for much.
All that seems to have been demanded was that a man should have been
already a member of the particular church over which he was to be made
bishop, and even this rule was not universal (see Bingham's
Antiquities, II 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was bishop of C'sarea
therefore would at most warrant us in concluding only that he had made
his residence in C'sarea for some time previous to his election to that
office. Nevertheless, although neither of these arguments proves his
Palestinian birth, it is very probable that he was a native of that
country, or at least of that section. He was acquainted with Syriac as
well as with Greek, which circumstance taken in connection with his
ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to the region of Syria as
his birthplace. Moreover, we learn from his own testimony that he was
in C'sarea while still a youth (Vita Canstantini, I. 19), and in his
epistle to the church of C'sarea (see below, p. 16) he says that he was
taught the creed of the C'sarean church in his childhood (or at least
at the beginning of his Christian life: <greek>en</greek>
<greek>th</greek> <greek>kathkhsei</greek>),
and that he accepted it at baptism. It would seem therefore that he
must have lived while still a child either in C'sarea itself, or in the
neighborhood, where its creed was in use. Although no one therefore
(except Theodorus Metochita of the fourteenth century, in his Cap.
Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLTV. 949) directly states that
Eusebius was a Palestinian by birth, we have every reason to suppose
him such. His parents are entirely unknown. Nicephorus Callistus (H. E.
VI. 37) reports that his mother was a sister of Pamphilus. He does not
mention his authority for this statement, and it is extremely unlikely,
in the face of the silence of Eusebius himself and of all other
writers, that it is true. It is far more probable that the relationship
was later assumed to account for the close intimacy of the two men.
Arius, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (contained in
Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 5), calls Eusebius of C'sarea the latter's
brother. It is objected to this that Eusebius of Nicomedia refers to
Eusebius of C'sarea on one occasion as his
5
"master" (<greek>tou</greek>
<greek>despotou</greek>, in his epistle to Paulinus
contained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 6), and that on the other
hand Eusebius of C'sarea calls Eusebius of Nicomedia, "the great
Eusebius" (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), both of which expressions
seem inconsistent with brotherhood. Lightfoot justly remarks that
neither the argument itself nor the objections carry much weight. The
term <greek>adelFos</greek> may well have been used to
indicate merely theological or ecclesiastical association, while on the
other hand, brotherhood would not exclude the form of expression
employed by each in speaking of the other. Of more weight is the fact
that neither Eusebius himself nor any historian of that period refers
to such a relationship, and also the unlikelihood that two members of
one family should bear the same name.
From Eusebius' works we gather that he must have
received an extensive education both in secular philosophy and in
Biblical and theological science. Although his immense erudition was
doubtless the result of wide and varied reading continued throughout
life, it is highly probable that he acquired the taste for such reading
in his youth. Who his early instructors were we do not know, and
therefore cannot estimate the degree of their influence over him. As he
was a man, however, who cherished deep admiration for those whom he
regarded as great and good men, and as he possessed an unusually
acquisitive mind and a pliant disposition, we should naturally suppose
that his instructors must have possessed considerable influence over
him, and that his methods of study in later years must have been
largely molded by their example and precept. We see this exemplified in
a remarkable degree in the influence exerted over him by Pamphilus, his
dearest friend, and at the same time the preceptor, as it were, of his
early manhood. Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done much
to strengthen Eusebius' natural taste for omnivorous reading, and the
opportunities afforded by his grand library for the cultivation of such
a taste were not lost. To the influence of Pamphilus, the devoted
admirer and enthusiastic champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in
large measure the deep respect which Eusebius showed for that
illustrious Father, a respect to which we owe one of the most
delightful sections of his Church History, his long account of Origen
in the sixth book, and to which in part antiquity was indebted for the
elaborate Defense of Origen, composed by Pamphilus and himself, but
unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly owed much to the
companionship of that eager student and noble Christian hero, and he
always recognized with deep gratitude his indebtedness to him. (Compare
the account of Pamphilus given below in Bk. VII. chap. 32, § 25
sq.) The names of his earlier instructors, who were eminently
successful, at least in fostering his thirst for knowledge, are quite
unknown to us. His abiding admiration for Plato, whom he always placed
at the head of all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would lead us to
think that he received at least a part of his secular training from
some ardent Platonist, while his intense interest in apologetics, which
lasted throughout his life, and which affected all his works, seems to
indicate the peculiar bent of his early Christian education. Trithemius
concluded from a passage in his History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a
pupil of the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius, Lightfoot and
others are apparently inclined to accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth
remarks (Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, p. xix), all that Eusebius says is
that he had heard Dorotheus expound the Scriptures in the church
(<greek>toutou</greek> <greek>metriws</greek>
<greek>tas</greek> <greek>UraFas</greek>
<greek>eps</greek> <greek>epi</greek>
<greek>ths</greek> <greek>ekklhsias</greek>
<greek>dihUoumenou</greek>
<greek>kathkousamen</greek>), that is, that he had heard
him preach. To conclude from this statement that he was a pupil of
Dorotheus is certainly quite unwarranted.
Stroth's suggestion that he probably enjoyed the
instruction of Meletius for seven years during the persecution rests
upon no good ground, for the passage which he relies upon to sustain
his opinion (E. E. VII. 32. 28) says only that Eusebius "observed
Meletius well" (<greek>katenohsamen</greek>) during those
seven years.
In C'sarea Eusebius was at one time a presbyter of
the church, as we may gather from his words in the epistle to that
church already referred to, where, in speaking of the creed, he says,
"As we believed and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate
itself." But the attempt to fix the date of his ordination to that
office is quite vain. It is commonly assumed that he
6
became presbyter while Agapius was bishop of C'sarea, and this is not
unlikely, though we possess no proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H.
E. VII. 32, note 39). In his Vita Constantini, I. 19, Eusebius reports
that he saw Constantine for the first time in C'sarea in the train of
the Emperor Diocletian. In his Chron. Eusebius reports that Diocletian
made an expedition against Egypt, which had risen in rebellion in the
year 296 A.D., and Theophanes, in his Chron., says that Constantine
accompanied him. It is probable therefore that it was at this time that
Eusebius first saw Constantine in C'sarea, when he was either on his
way to Egypt, or on his way back (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp., IV.
p. 34).
During these years of quiet, before the great
persecution of Diocletian, which broke out in 303 A.D., Eusebius' life
must have been a very pleasant one. Pamphilus' house seems to have been
a sort of rendezvous for Christian scholars, perhaps a regular divinity
school; for we learn from Eusebius' Martyrs in Palestine (Cureton's
edition, pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of others, including the
martyr Apphianus, were living together in one house at the time of the
persecution, and that the latter was instructed in the Scriptures by
Pamphilus and acquired from him virtuous habits and conduct. The great
library of Pamphilus would make his house a natural center for
theological study, and the immense amount of work which was done by
him, or under his direction, in the reproduction of copies of the Holy
Scriptures, of Origen's works (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 75 and 8r, and
contra Ruf. I. 9), and in other literary employments of the same kind,
makes it probable that he had gathered about him a large circle of
friends and students who assisted him in his labors and profited by his
counsel and instruction. Amidst these associations Eusebius passed his
early manhood, and the intellectual stimulus thus given him doubtless
had much to do with his future career. He was above all a literary man,
and remained such to the end of his life. The pleasant companionships
of these days, and the mutual interest and sympathy which must have
bound those fellow-students and fellow-disciples of Pamphilus very
close together, perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded spirit of
sympathy and tolerance which so characterized Eusebius in later years.
He was always as far as possible from the character of a recluse. He
seems ever to have been bound by very strong ties to the world itself
and to his fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with trials and
hardships, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes and unfulfilled
ambitions, with harsh experiences of others' selfishness and treachery,
who shall say that the whole course of his life might not have been
changed, and his writings have exhibited au entirely different spirit
from that which is now one of their greatest charms? Certainly he had
during these early years in C'sarea large opportunities for cultivating
that natural trait of admiration for other men, which was often so
strong as to blind him even to their faults, and that natural kindness
which led him to see good wherever it existed in his Christian
brethren. At the same time these associations must have had
considerable influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The pursuits
of the little circle were apparently exclusively Christian, and in that
day when Christianity stood always on its defense, it would naturally
become to them a sacred duty to contribute to that defense and to
employ all their energies in the task. It has been remarked that the
apologetic temper is very noticeable in Eusebius' writings. It is more
than that; we may say indeed in general terms that everything he wrote
was an apology for the faith. His History was written avowedly with an
apologetic purpose, his Chronicle was composed with the same end in
view. Even when pronouncing a eulogy upon a deceased emperor he seized
ever), possible opportunity to draw from that emperor's career, and
from the circumstances of his reign, arguments for the truth and
grandeur of the Christian religion. His natural temper of mind and his
early training may have had much to do with this habit of thought, but
certainly those years with Pamphilus and his friends in C'sarea must
have emphasized and developed it.
Another characteristic which Pamphilus and the
circle that surrounded him doubtless did something to develop in our
author was a certain superiority to the trammels of mere
traditionalism, or we might perhaps better say that they in some
measure checked the opposite tendency of
7
slavishness to the traditional which seems to have been natural to him.
Pamphilus' deep reverence for Origen proclaims him at once superior to
that kind of narrow conservatism which led many men as learned and
doubtless as conscientious as himself to pass severe and unconditional
condemnation upon Origen and all his teaching. The effect of
championing his cause must have fostered in this little circle, which
was a very hotbed of Origenism, a contempt for the narrow and unfair
judgments of mere traditionalists, and must have led them to seek in
some degree the truth solely for its own sake, and to become in a
measure careless of its relation to the views of any school or church.
It could hardly be otherwise than that the free and fearless spirit of
Origen should leave its impress through his writings upon a circle of
followers so devoted to him as were these C'sarean students. Upon the
impressionable Eusebius these influences necessarily operated. And yet
he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such
as Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a
productive mind, and hence it was out of the question that he should
become a second Origen. It was quite certain that Origen's influence
over him would weaken somewhat his confidence in the traditional as
such,-a confidence which is naturally great in such minds as his,-- but
at the same time would do little to lessen the real power of the past
over him. He continued to get his truth from others, from the great men
of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had
feasted. All that he believed he had drawn from them; he produced
nothing new for himself, and his creed was a traditional creed. And yet
he had at the same time imbibed from his surroundings the habit of
questioning and even criticising the past, and, in spite of his abiding
respect for it, had learned to feel that the voice of the many is not
always the voice of truth, and that the widely and anciently accepted
is sometimes to be corrected by the clearer sight of a single man.
Though he therefore depended for all he believed so completely upon the
past, his associations had helped to free him from a slavish adherence
to all that a particular school had accepted, and had made him in some
small measure an eclectic in his relations to doctrines and opinions of
earlier generations. A notable instance of this eclecticism on his part
is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force
of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apostolic origin, and
yet in the face of that he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and
could be led by his example, in a case where his own dissatisfaction
with the book acted as an incentive, almost, if not quite, to reject it
and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of
conduct on his part are quite numerous. While he is always a staunch
apologist for Christianity, he seldom, if ever, degenerates into a mere
partisan of any particular school or sect.
One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable
in Eusebius' works is the comparatively small amount of time and space
which he devotes to heretics. With his wide and varied learning and his
extensive acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for
successful heresy hunting such as few possessed, and yet he never was a
heresy hunter in any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a
fascination this employment had for so many scholars of his own age,
and when we realize that his historical tastes and talents would seem
to mark him out as just the man for that kind of work. May it not be
that the lofty spirit of Origen, animating that C'sarean school, had
something to do with the happy fact that he became an apologist instead
of a mere polemic, that he chose the honorable task of writing a
history of the Church. instead of anticipating Epiphanius' Panarium?
It was not that he was not alive to the evils of
heresy. He shared with nearly all good church-men of his age an intense
aversion for those who, as he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel
of Christ. Like them he ascribed heresy to the agency of the evil one,
and was no more able than they to see any good in a man whom he looked
upon as a real heretic, or to do justice in any degree to the error
which he taught. His condemnations of heretics in his Church History
are most severe. Language is hardly strong enough to express his
aversion for them. And yet, although he is thus most thoroughly the
child of his age, the difference between him and most of his
contemporaries is very apparent. He mentions these heretics only to
dismiss them with dis-
8
approval or condemnation. He seldom, if ever, discusses and refutes
their views. His interests lie evidently in other directions; he is
concerned with higher things. A still more strongly marked difference
between himself and many churchmen of his age lies in his large
liberality towards those of his own day who differed with him in minor
points of faith, and his comparative indifference to the divergence of
views between the various parties in the Church. In all this we believe
is to be seen not simply the inherent nature of the man, but that
nature as trained in the school of Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.
§ 3. The Persecution of Diocletian.
In this delightful circle and engaged in such
congenial tasks, the time must have passed very happily for Eusebius,
until, in 303, the terrible persecution of Diocletian broke upon the
Church almost like a thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The causes of the
sudden change of policy on Diocletian's part, and the terrible havoc
wrought in the Church, it is not my intention to discuss here (see
below, Bk. VIII. chap. 2, note 3 sq.). We are concerned with the
persecution only in so far as it bears upon the present subject. In the
first year of the persecution Procopius, the first martyr of Palestine,
was put to death at C'sarea (Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's
ed. p. 4), and from that time on that city, which was an important
Christian center, was the scene of a tempest which raged with greater
or less violence, and with occasional cessations, for seven years.
Eusebius himself was an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which
he gives us an account in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle
which surrounded Pamphilus did not escape. In the third year of the
persecution (Mart. of Pal. p. 12 sq.) a youth named Apphianus, or
Epiphanius (the former is given in the Greek text, the latter in the
Syriac), who "resided in the same house with us, confirming himself in
godly doctrine, and being instructed by that perfect martyr, Pamphilus"
(as Eusebius says), committed an act of fanatical daring which caused
his arrest and martyrdom. It seems that without the knowledge of his
friends, concealing his design even from those who dwelt in the same
house with him, he laid hold of the hand of the governor, Arbanus, who
was upon the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to dissuade him from
offering to "lifeless idols and wicked devils." His arrest was of
course the natural consequence, and he had the glory of witnessing a
good profession and suffering a triumphant death. Although Eusebius
speaks with such admiration of his conduct, it is quite significant of
the attitude of himself, and of most of the circle of which he was one,
that Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his purpose from them. He
doubtless feared that they would not permit him to perform the rash act
which he meditated, and we may conclude from that, that the circle in
the main was governed by the precepts of good common sense, and avoided
that fanaticism which so frequently led men, as in the present case it
led Apphianus, to expose themselves needlessly, and even to court
martyrdom. It is plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' general
character that he himself was too sensible to act in that way. It is
true that he speaks with admiration of Apphianus' conduct, and in H. E.
VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a Nicomedian Christian; but
that does not imply that he considered their course the wisest one, and
that he would not rather recommend the employment of all proper and
honorable precautions for the preservation of life. Indeed, in H. E.
IV. 15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pursued
by Polycarp in preserving his life so long as he could without
violating his Christian profession, and with manifest disapproval of
the rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who presumptuously courted
martyrdom, only to fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also
possessed too much sound Christian sense to advocate any such
fanaticism, or to practice it himself, as is plain enough from the fact
that he was not arrested until the fifth year of the persecution. This
unhealthy temper of mind in the midst of persecution was indeed almost
universally condemned by the wisest men of the Church, and yet the
boldness and the very rashness of those who thus voluntarily and
needlessly threw their lives away excited widespread admiration and too
often a degree
9
of commendation which served only to promote a wider growth of the same
unhealthy sentiment.
In the fifth year of the persecution Pamphilus was
arrested and thrown into prison, where he remained for two years, when
he finally, in the seventh year of the persecution, suffered martyrdom
with eleven others, some of whom were his disciples and members of his
own household. (Pal. Mart. Cureton's ed. p. 36 sq.; H. E. App. chap.
11.) During the two years of Pamphilus' imprisonment Eusebius spent a
great deal of time with him, and the two together composed five books
of an Apology for Origen, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth
(see below, p. 36). Danz (p. 37) assumes that Eusebius was imprisoned
with Pamphilus, which is not an unnatural supposition when we consider
how much they must have been together to compose the Apology as they
did. There is, however, no other evidence that he was thus imprisoned,
and in the face of Eusebius' own silence it is safer perhaps to assume
(with most historians) that he simply visited Pamphilus in his prison.
How it happened that Pamphilus and so many of his followers were
imprisoned and martyred, while Eusebius escaped, we cannot tell. In his
Martyrs of Palestine, chap. 11, he states that Pamphilus was the only
one of the company of twelve martyrs that was a presbyter of the
C'sarean church; and from the fact that he nowhere mentions the
martyrdom of others of the presbyters, we may conclude that they all
escaped. It is not surprising, therefore, that Eusebius should have
done the same. Nevertheless, it is somewhat difficult to understand how
he could come and go so frequently without being arrested and condemned
to a like fate with the others. It is possible that he possessed
friends among the authorities whose influence procured his safety. This
supposition finds some support in the fact that he had made the
acquaintance of Constantine (the Greek in Vita Const. I. 19 has
<greek>egnwmen</greek>, which implies, as Danz remarks,
that he not only saw, but that he became acquainted with Constantine)
some years before in C'sarea. He could hardly have made his
acquaintance unless he had some friend among the high officials of the
city. Influential family connections may account in part also for the
position of prominence which he later acquired at the imperial court of
Constantine. If he had friends in authority in C'sarea during the
persecution his exemption from arrest is satisfactorily accounted for.
It has been supposed by some that Eusebius denied the faith during the
terrible persecution, or that he committed some other questionable and
compromising act of concession, and thus escaped martyrdom. In support
of this is urged the fact that in 335, at the council of Tyre, Potamo,
bishop of Heraclea, in Egypt, addressed Eusebius in the following
words: "Dost thou sit as judge, O Eusebius; and is Athanasius, innocent
as he is, judged by thee? Who can bear such things? Pray tell me, wast
thou not with me in prison during the persecution? And I lost an eye in
behalf of the truth, but thou appearest to have received no bodily
injury, neither hast thou suffered martyrdom, but thou hast remained
alive with no mutilation. How wast thou released from prison unless
thou didst promise those that put upon us the pressure of persecution
to do that which is unlawful, or didst actually do it?" Eusebius, it
seems, did not deny the charge, but simply rose in anger and dismissed
the council with the words, "If ye come hither and make such
accusations against us, then do your accusers speak the truth. For if
ye tyrannize here, much more do ye in your own country" (Epiphan. Har.
LXVIII. 8). It must be noticed, however, that Potamo does not directly
charge Eusebius with dishonorable conduct, he simply conjectures that
he must have acted dishonorably in order to escape punishment; as if
every one who was imprisoned with Potamo must have suffered as he did!
As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible that his peculiarly excitable
and violent temperament was one of the causes of his own loss. He
evidently in any case had no knowledge of unworthy conduct on Eusebius'
part, nor had any one else so far as we can judge. For in that age of
bitter controversy, when men's characters were drawn by their opponents
in the blackest lines, Eusebius must have suffered at the hands of the
Athanasian party if it had been known that he had acted a cowardly part
in the persecution. Athanasius himself refers to this incident (Contra
Arian. VIII. 1), but he only says that Eusebius was "accused of
sacrificing," he does
10
not venture to affirm that he did sacrifice; and thus it is evident
that he knew nothing of such an act. Moreover, he never calls Eusebius
"the sacrificer," as he does Asterius, and as he would have been sure
to do had he possessed evidence which warranted him in making the
accusation (cf. Lightfoot, p. 311). Still further, Eusebius' subsequent
election to the episcopate of C'sarea, where his character and his
conduct during the persecution must have been well known, and his
appointment in later life to the important see of Antioch, forbid the
supposition that he had ever acted a cowardly part in time of
persecution. And finally, it is psychologically impossible that
Eusebius could have written works so full of comfort for, and sympathy
with, the suffering confessors, and could have spoken so openly and in
such strong terms of condemnation of the numerous defections that
occurred during the persecution, if he. was conscious of his own guilt.
It is quite possible, as remarked above, that influential friends.
protected him without any act of compromise on his part; or, supposing
him to have been imprisoned with Potamo, it may be, as Lightfoot
suggests, that the close of the persecution brought him his release as
it did so many others. For it would seem natural to refer that
imprisonment to the latter part of the persecution, when in all
probability he visited Egypt, which was the home of Potamo. We must in
any case vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded charge of cowardice and
apostasy; and we ask, with Cave, "If every accusation against any man
at any time were to be believed, who would be guiltless?"
From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine we
learn that Eusebius was for much of the time in the very thick of the
fight, and was an eyewitness of numerous martyrdoms not only in
Palestine, but also in Tyre and in Egypt.
The date of his visits to the latter places (H. E.
VIII. 7, 9) cannot be determined with exactness. They are described in
connection with what seem to be the earlier events of the persecution,
and yet it is by no means certain that chronological order has been
observed in the narratives. The mutilation of prisoners--such as Potamo
suffered--seems to have become common only in the year 308 and
thereafter (see Mason's Persecution of Diocletian, p. 281), and hence
if Eusebius was imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as
seems most probable, there would be some reason for assigning that
visit to the later years of the persecution. In confirmation of this
might be urged the improbability that he would leave C'sarea while
Pamphilus was still alive, either before or after the latter's
imprisonment, and still further his own statement in H. E. VII. 32,
that he had observed Meletius escaping the fury of the persecution for
seven years in Palestine. It is therefore likely that Eusebius did not
make his journey to Egypt, which must have occupied some time, until
toward the very end of the persecution, when it raged there with
exceeding fierceness during the brief outburst of the infamous Maximin.
§ 4.
Eusebius' Accession to the Bishopric of C'sarea.
Not long after the close of the persecution,
Eusebius became bishop of C'sarea in Palestine, his own home, and held
the position until his death. The exact date of his accession cannot be
ascertained, indeed we cannot say that it did not take place even
before the close of the persecution, but that is hardly probable; in
fact, we know of no historian who places it earlier than 313. His
immediate predecessor in the episcopate was Agapius, whom he mentions
in terms of praise in H. E. VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a
bishop Agricolaus between Agopins and Eusebius (see e.g. Tillemont,
Hist. Ecceles. VII. 42), on the ground that his name appears in one of
the lists of those present at the Council of Ancyra (c. 314), as bishop
of C'sarea in Palestine (see Labbei el Cossartii Conc. I. 1475). But,
as Hefele shows (Conciliengesch. I. 220), this list is of late date and
not to be relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in
the Zibellus Synadicus (Conc. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is said to
have been present at the Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop of
C'sarea in Cappadocia; and this statement is confirmed by a Syriac list
given in Cowper's Miscellanies, p. 41. Though perhaps no great reliance
is to be
11
placed upon the correctness of any of these lists, the last two may at
any rate be set over against the first, and we may conclude that there
exists no ground for assuming that Agapius, who is the last C'sarean
bishop mentioned by Eusebius, was not the latter's immediate
predecessor. At what time Agapius died we do not know. That he suffered
martyrdom is hardly likely, in view of Eusebius' silence on the
subject. It would seem more likely that he outlived the persecution.
However that may be, Eusebius was already bishop at the time of the
dedication of a new and elegant Church at Tyre under the direction of
his friend Paulinus, bishop of that city. Upon this occasion he
delivered an address of considerable length, which he has inserted in
his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. X. chap. 4. He does not name himself as
its author, but the way in which he introduces it, and the very fact
that he records the whole speech without giving the name of the man who
delivered it, make its origin perfectly plain. Moreover, the last
sentence of the preceding chapter makes it evident that the speaker was
a bishop: "Every one of the rulers
(<greek>arkontwn</greek>) present delivered panegyric
discourses." The date of the dedication of this church is a matter of
dispute, though it is commonly put in the year 315. It is plain from
Eusebius' speech that it was uttered before Licinius had begun to
persecute the Christians, and also, as G"rres remarks, at a lime when
Constantine and Licinius were at least outwardly at peace with each
other. In the year 314 the two emperors went to war, and consequently,
if the persecution of Licinius began soon after that event, as it is
commonly supposed to have done, the address must have been delivered
before hostilities opened; that is, at least as early as 314, and this
is the year in which G"rres places it (Kritische Untersuchungen ueber
die licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 8). But if G"rres' date (319
A.D.) for the commencement of the persecution be accepted (and though
he can hardly be said to have proved it, he has urged some strong
grounds in support of it), then the address may have been delivered at
almost any time between 315 and 319, for, as G"rres himself shows,
Licinius and Constantine were outwardly at peace during the greater
part of that time (ib. p. 14, sq.). There is nothing in the speech
itself which prevents this later date, nor is it intrinsically
improbable that the great basilica reached completion only in 315 or
later. In fact, it must be admitted that Eusebius may have become
bishop at any time between about 311 and 318.
The persecution of Licinius, which continued until
his defeat by Constantine, in 323, was but local, and seems never to
have been very severe. Indeed, it did not bear the character of a
bloody persecution, though a few bishops appear to have met their death
on one ground or another. Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered
to any great extent (see G"rres, ib. p. 32 sq.).
§ 5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of
Eusebius.
About the year 318, while Alexander was bishop of
Alexandria, the Arian controversy broke out in that city, and the whole
Eastern Church was soon involved in the strife. We cannot enter here
into a discussion of Arius' views; but in order to understand the
rapidity with which the Arian party grew, and the strong hold which it
possessed from the very start in Syria and Asia Minor, we must remember
that Arius was not himself the author of that system which we know as
Arianism, but that he learned the essentials of it from his instructor
Lucian. The latter was one of the most learned men of his age in the
Oriental Church, and rounded an exegetico-theological school in
Antioch, which for a number of years stood outside of the communion of
the orthodox Church in that city, but shortly before the martyrdom of
Lucian himself (which took place in 311 or 312) made its peace with the
Church, and was recognized by it. He was held in the highest reverence
by his disciples, and exerted a great influence over them even after
his death. Among them were such men as Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Asterius, and others who were afterward known as staunch Arianists.
According to Harnack the chief points in the system of Lucian and his
disciples were the creation of the Son, the denial of his co-eternity
with the Father, and his immutability acquired by persistent progress
and steadfastness. His doctrine, which differed
12
from that of Paul of Samosata chiefly in the fact that it was not a man
but a created heavenly being who became "Lord," was evidently the
result of a combination of the teaching of Paul and of Origen. It will
be seen that we have here, at least in germ, all the essential elements
of Arianism proper: the creation of the Son out of nothing, and
consequently the conclusion that there was a time when he was not; the
distinction of his essence from that of the Father, but at the same
time the emphasis upon the fact that he "was not created as the other
creatures," and is therefore to be sharply distinguished from them.
There was little for Arius to do but to combine the elements given by
Lucian in a more complete and well-ordered system, and then to bring
that system forward clearly and publicly, and endeavor to make it the
faith of the Church at large. His christology was essentially opposed
to the Alexandrian, and it was natural that he should soon come into
conflict with that church, of which he was a presbyter (upon Lucian's
teaching and its relation to Arianism, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,
II. p. 183 sq.).
Socrates (H. E. I. 5 sq.), Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) and
Theodoret (H. E. I. 2 sq.), all of whom give accounts of the rise of
Arianism, differ as to the immediate occasion of the controversy, but
agree that Arius was excommunicated by a council convened at
Alexandria, and that both he and the bishop Alexander sent letters to
other churches, the latter defending his own course, the former
complaining of his harsh treatment, and endeavoring to secure adherents
to his doctrine. Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm
supporter, and was one of the leading figures on the Arian side
throughout the entire controversy. His influential position as bishop
of Nicomedia, the imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was
of great advantage to the Arian cause, especially toward the close of
Constantine's reign. From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to
Paulinus of Tyre (Theodoret, H. E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of
C'sarea was quite zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date
of the letter we do not know, but it must have been written at an early
stage of the controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to
Eusebius of Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), claims Eusebius of
C'sarea among others as accepting at least one of his fundamental
doctrines ("And since Eusebius, your brother in C'sarea, and Theodotus,
and Paulinus, and Athanasius, and Gregory, and 'tius, and all the
bishops of the East say that God existed before the Son, they have been
condemned," etc.). More than this, Sozomen (H. E. I. 15 ) informs us
that Eusebius of C'sarea and two other bishops, having been appealed to
by Arius for "permission for himself and his adherents, as he had
already attained the rank of presbyter, to form the people who were
with them into a church," concurred with others "who were assembled in
Palestine," in granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him to
assemble the people as before; but they "enjoined submission to
Alexander, and commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to
peace and communion with him." The addition of the last sentence is
noticeable, as showing that they did not care to support a presbyter in
open and persistent rebellion against his bishop. A fragment of a
letter written by our Eusebius to Alexander is still extant, and is
preserved in the proceedings of the Second Council of Nic'a, Act. VI.
Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). In this epistle
Eusebius strongly remonstrates with Alexander for having misrepresented
the views of Arius. Still further, in his epistle to Alexander of
Constantinople, Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H. E. I. 4)
complains of three Syrian bishops "who side with them [i.e. the Arians]
and excite them to plunge deeper and deeper into iniquity." The
reference here is commonly supposed to be to Eusebius of C'sarean, and
his two friends Paulinus of Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are
known to have shown favor to Arius. It is probable, though not certain,
that our Eusebius is one of the persons meant. Finally, many of the
Fathers (above all Jerome and Photius), and in addition to them the
Second Council of Nic'a, directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian
heresy, as may be seen by examining the testimonies quoted below on p.
67 sq. In agreement with these early Fathers, many modern historians
have attacked Eusebius with great severity, and have endeavored to show
that the opinion that he was an Arian is supported by his own writings.
Among those who have judged him most harshly are Baronins (ad ann. 340,
c. 38 sq.), Petavius
13
(Dogm. Theol. de Trin. I. c. 11 sq.), Scaliger (In Elencho Trih'resii,
c. 27, and De emendatione temporum, Bk. VI. c. 1), Mosheim
(Ecclesiastical History, Murdock's translation, I. p. 287 sq.),
Montfaucon (Pr'lim. in Comment. ad Psalm. c. VI.), and Tillemont (H. E.
VII. p. 67 sq. 2d ed.).
On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius'
favor, quoted below on, p. 57 sq., many of the Fathers, who were
themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as likewise sound on the
subject of the Trinity. He has been defended in modern times against
the charge of Arianism by a great many prominent scholars; among others
by Valesius in his Life Eusebius, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20,
III. 9. 3, 11), Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 sq.), Fabricius
(Bibl. Gr'c. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin (Bibl. Eccles. IL p. 7 sq.), and
most fully and carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of
Eusebius' Theaphania, p. xxiv. sq. Lightfoot also defends him against
the charge of heresy, as do a great many other writers whom it is not
necessary to mention here. Confronted with such diversity of opinion,
both ancient and modern, what are we to conclude? It is useless to
endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of all sympathy with and
leaning toward Arianism. It is impossible to explain such widespread
and continued condemnation of him by acknowledging only that there are
many expressions in his works which are in themselves perfectly
orthodox but capable of being wrested in such a way as to produce a
suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies, for there are such
expressions in the works of multitudes of ancient writers whose
orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the widespread belief that
he was an Arian be explained by admitting that he was for a time the
personal friend of Arius, but denying that he accepted, or in any way
sympathized with his views (cf. Newman's Arians, p. 262). There are in
fact certain fragments of epistles extant, which are, to say the least,
decidedly Arianistic in their modes of expression, and these must be
reckoned with in forming an opinion of Eusebius' views; for there is no
reason to deny, as Lee does, that they are from Eusebius' own hand. On
the other hand, to maintain, with some of the Fathers and many of the
moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian,
will not do in the face of the facts that contemporary and later
Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy, that he was honored highly by
the Church of subsequent centuries, except at certain periods, and was
even canonized (see Lightfoot's article, p. 348), that he solemnly
signed the Nicene Creed, which contained an express condemnation of the
distinctive doctrines of Arius, and finally that at least in his later
works he is thoroughly orthodox in his expressions, and is explicit in
his rejection of the two main theses of the Arians,--that there was a
time when the Son of God was not, and that he was produced out of
nothing. It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of
such passages in Eusebius' works as bear upon the subject under
dispute. Lee has considered many of them at great length, and the
reader may be referred to him for further information.
A careful examination of them will, I believe, serve
to convince the candid student that there is a distinction to be drawn
between those works written before the rise of Arius, those written
between that time and the Council of Nic'a, and those written after the
latter. It has been very common to draw a distinction between those
works written before and those written after the Council, but no one,
so far as I know, has distinguished those productions of Eusebius' pen
which appeared between 318 and 325, and which were caused by the
controversy itself, from all his other writings. And yet such a
distinction seems to furnish the key to the problem. Eusebius'
opponents have drawn their strongest arguments from the epistles which
Eusebius wrote to Alexander and to Euphration; his defenders have drawn
their arguments chiefly from the works which he produced subsequent to
the year 325; while the exact bearing of the expressions used in his
works produced before the controversy broke out has always been a
matter of sharp dispute. Lee has abundantly shown his Contra Marcel.,
his De Eccl. Theol., his Thephania (which was written after the Council
of Nic'a, and not, as Lee supposes, before it), and other later works,
to be thoroughly orthodox and to contain nothing which a trinitarian
might not have written. In his Hist. Eccl., Pr'paratio Evang.,
Demanstratio Evang., and other earlier works,
14
although we find some expressions employed which it would not have been
possible for an orthodox trinitarian to use after the Council of Nic'a,
at least without careful limitation to guard against misapprehension,
there is nothing even in these works which requires us to believe that
he accepted the doctrines of Arius' predecessor, Lucian of Antioch;
that is, there is nothing distinctly and positively Arianistic about
them, although there are occasional expressions which might lead the
reader to expect that the writer would become an Arian if he ever
learned of Arius' doctrines. But if there is seen to be a lack of
emphasis upon the divinity of the Son, or rather a lack of clearness in
the conception of the nature of that divinity, it must be remembered
that there was at this time no especial reason for emphasizing and
defining it, but there was on the contrary very good reason for laying
particular stress upon the subordination of the Son over against
Sabellianism, which was so widely prevalent during the third century,
and which was exerting an influence even over many orthodox theologians
who did not consciously accept Sabellianistic tenets. That Eusebius was
a decided subordinationist must be plain to every one that reads his
works with care, especially his earlier ones. It would be surprising if
he had not been, for he was born at a time when Sabellianism
(monarchianism) was felt to be the greatest danger to which orthodox
christology was exposed, and he was trained under the influence of the
followers of Origen, who had made it one of his chief aims to emphasize
the subordination of the Son over against that very monarchianism. [1]
The same subordinationism may be clearly seen in the writings of
Dionysius of Alexandria and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, two of Origen's
greatest disciples. It must not be forgotten that at the beginning of
the fourth century the problem of how to preserve the Godhood of Christ
and at the same time his subordination to the Father (in opposition to
the monarchianists) had not been solved. Eusebius in his earlier
writings shows that he holds both (he cannot be convicted of denying
Christ's divinity), but that he is as far from a solution of the
problem, and is just as uncertain in regard to the exact relation of
Father and Son, as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, and
Gregory Thaumaturgus were; is just as inconsistent in his modes of
expression as they, and yet no more so (see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,
I. pp. 628 sq. and 634 sq., for an exposition of the opinions of these
other Fathers on the subject). Eusebius, with the same immature and
undeveloped views which were held all through the third century, wrote
those earlier works which have given rise to so much dispute between
those who accuse him of Arianism and those who defend him against the
charge. When he wrote them he was neither Arian nor Athanasian, and for
that reason passages may be found in them which if written after the
Council of Nicaea might prove him an Arian, and other passages which
might as truly prove him an Athanasian, just as in the writings of
Origen were found by both parties passages to support their views, and
in Gregory Thaumaturgus passages apparently teaching Arianism, and
others teaching its opposite, Sabellianism (see Harnack, ib. p. 646).
Let us suppose now that Eusebius, holding fast to
the divinity of Christ, and yet convinced just as firmly of his
subordination to the Father, becomes acquainted through Arius, or other
like-minded disciples of Lucian of Antioch, with a doctrine which seems
to preserve the Godhood, while at the same time emphasizing strongly
the subordination of the Son, and which formulates the relation of
Father and Son in a clear and rational manner. That he should accept
such a doctrine eagerly is just what we should expect, and just what we
find him doing. In his epistles to Alexander and Euphration, he shows
himself an Arian, and Arius and his followers were quite
15
right in claiming him as a supporter. There is that in the epistles
which is to be found nowhere in his previous writings, and which
distinctly separates him from the orthodox party. How then are we to
explain the fact that a few years later he signed the Nicene creed and
anathematized the doctrines of Arius? Before we can understand his
conduct, it is necessary to examine carefully the two epistles in
question. Such an examination will show us that what Eusebius is
defending in them is not genuine Arianism. He evidently thinks that it
is, evidently supposes that he and Arius are in complete agreement upon
the subjects under discussion; but he is mistaken. The extant fragments
of the two epistles are given below on p. 70. It will be seen that
Eusebius in them defends the Arian doctrine that there was a time when
the Son of God was not. It will be seen also that he finds fault with
Alexander for representing the Arians as teaching that the "Son of God
was made out of nothing, like all creatures," and contends that Arius
teaches that the Son of God was begotten, and that he was not produced
like all creatures. We know that the Arians very commonly applied the
word "begotten" to Christ, using it in such cases as synonymous with
"created," and thus not implying, as the Athanasians did when they used
the word, that he was of one substance with the Father (compare, for
instance, the explanation of the meaning of the term given by Eusebius
of Nicomedia in his epistle to Paulinns; Theod. H. E. I. 6). It is
evident that the use of this word had deceived our Eusebius, and that
he was led by it to think that they taught that the Son was of the
Father in a peculiar sense, and did in reality partake in some way of
essential Godhood. And indeed it is not at all surprising that the
words of Arius, in his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (see Athan.
Ep. de conc. Arim. et Seleuc., chap. II. § 3; Oxford edition of
Athanasius' Tracts against Arianism, P. 97), quoted by Eusebius in his
epistle to the same Alexander, should give Eusebius that impression.
The words are as follows: "The God of the law, and of the prophets, and
of the New Testament before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son,
through whom also He made the ages and the universe. And He begat him
not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will,
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one
of the creatures." Arius' use here of the word "begat," and his
qualification of the word "creature" by the adjective "perfect," and by
the statement that he was "not as one of the creatures" naturally
tended to make Eusebius think. that Arius acknowledged a real divinity
of the Son, and that appeared to him to be all that was necessary.
Meanwhile Alexander in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople
(Theod. H. E. I. 4) had, as Eusebius says, misstated Arius' opinion, or
at least had attributed to him the belief that Christ was "made like
all other men that have ever been born," whereas Arius expressly
disclaims such a belief. Alexander undoubtedly thought that that was
the legitimate result to which the other views of Arius must lead; but
Eusebius did not think so, and felt himself called upon to remonstrate
with Alexander for what seemed to him the latter's unfairness in the
matter.
When we examine the C'sarean creed[1] which Eusebius
presented to the Council as a fair statement of his belief, we find
nothing in it inconsistent with the acceptance of the kind of Arianism
which he defends in his epistle to Alexander, and which he evidently
supposed to be practically the Arianism of Arius himself. In his
epistle to Euphration, however, Eusebius seems at first glance to go
further and to give up the real divinity of the Son. His words are,
"Since the Son is himself God, but not true God." But we have no right
to interpret these words, torn as they are from the context which might
make their meaning perfectly plain, without due regard to Eusebius'
belief expressed elsewhere in this epistle, and in his epistle to
Alexander which was evidently written about the same time. In the
epistle to Alexander he clearly reveals a belief in the real divinity
of the Son, while in the other fragment of his epistle to Euphration he
dwells upon the subordination of the Son and approves the Arian
opinion, which he had defended also in the other epistle, that the
"Father was before the Son." The expression, "not true God" (a very
common Arian expression; see Athan. Orat. c. Arian. I. 6) seems
therefore to have been
16
used by Eusebius to express a belief, not that the Son did not possess
real divinity (as the genuine Arians used it), but that he was not
equal to the Father, who, to Eusebius' thought, was "true God." He
indeed expressly calls the Son <greek>qeos</greek>, which
shows -- when the sense in which he elsewhere uses the word is
considered -- that he certainly did believe him to partake of Godhood,
though, in some mysterious way, in a smaller degree, or in a less
complete manner than the Father. That Eusebius misunderstood Arius, and
did not perceive that he actually denied all real deity to the Son, was
due doubtless in part to his lack of theological insight (Eusebius was
never a great theologian), in part to his habitual dread of
Sabellianism (of which Arius had accused Alexander, and toward which
Eusebius evidently thought that the latter was tending), which led him
to look with great favor upon the pronounced subordinationism of Arius,
and thus to overlook the dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that
subordinationism.
We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit that
Eusebius, after the breaking out of the Arian controversy, became an
Arian, as he understood Arianism, and supported that party with
considerable vigor; and that not as a result of mere personal
friendship, but of theological conviction. At the same time, he was
then, as always, a peace-loving man, and while lending Arius his
approval and support, he united with other Palestinian bishops in
enjoining upon him submission to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). As
an Arian, then, and yet possessed with the desire of securing, if it
were possible, peace and harmony between the two factions, Eusebius
appeared at the Council of Nic'a, and there signed a creed containing
Athanasian doctrine and anathematizing the chief tenets of Arius. How
are we to explain his conduct? We shall, perhaps, do best to let him
explain his own conduct. In his letter to the church of C'sarea
(preserved by Socrates, H. E. I. 8, as well as by other authors), he
writes as follows:--
"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith
at the Great Council assembled at Nic'a you have probably learned,
Beloved, from other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate
account of what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of
the case have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to
you, first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the
second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to our words.
Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious
Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:--
"'As we have received from the Bishops who preceded
us, and in our first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Layer,
and as we have learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed
and taught in the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so
believing also at the time present, we report to you our faith, and it
is this:--
"'We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the
Maker of all things visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus
Christ, the Word of God, God from God, Light from Light, Life from
Life, Son Only-begotten, first-born of every creature, before all the
ages, begotten from the Father, by whom also all things were made; who
for our salvation was made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered,
and rose again the third day, and ascended to the Father, and will come
again in glory to judge quick and dead, And we believe also in One Holy
Ghost; believing each of These to be and to exist, the Father truly
Father, and the Son truly Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as
also our Lord, sending forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go,
teach all nations, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we
have ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect
ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our
Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to
convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and
preaching.'
"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no
room for contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any
one else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He
confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised
all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent
to them, with the insertion of the single word, 'One in substance'
(<greek>omoousios</greek>), which, moreover, he interpreted
as not in the sense of the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son
subsisted from the Father, in the way of division, or any sever-
17
ance; for that the immaterial and intellectual and incorporeal nature
could not be the subject of any corporeal affection, but that it became
us to conceive of such things in a divine and ineffable manner. And
such were the theological remarks of our most wise and most religious
Emperor; but they, with a view to the addition of 'One in substance,'
drew up the following formula:--
"'We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker
of all things visible and invisible:-- And in One Lord Jesus Christ,
the Son of God, begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from
the Substance of the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God
from very God, begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by
whom all things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth;
who for us men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was
made man, suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven,
and cometh to judge quick and dead.
"'And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He
was not," and "Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be
from nothing," or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other
subsistence or substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable,"
the Catholic Church anathematizes.'
"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it
pass without inquiry in what sense they introduced of the substance of
the Father' and 'one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly
questions and explanations took place, and the meaning of the words
underwent the scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase
'of the substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the
Father, yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this
understanding we thought good to assent to the sense of such religious
doctrine, teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not,
however, a part of His substance. On this account we assented to the
sense ourselves, without declining even the term 'One in substance,'
peace being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the
orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted 'begotten, not made';
since the Council alleged that 'made' was an appellative common to the
other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had
no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the
things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is
too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach
to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being
inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on
examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is 'one in
substance' with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal
beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance;
no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's
substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the
Father is alien), but because 'one in substance with the Father'
suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated
creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every
way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and
substance, but from the Father.
"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared
well to assent; since we were aware that, even among the ancients, some
learned and illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term 'one in
substance' in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son.
So much, then, be said concerning the faith which was published; to
which all of us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the
specified senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself,
and justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the
anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost
all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no
divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, 'out of nothing' and
'once He was not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground
for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
Moreover, to anathematize 'Before His generation He was not' did not
seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God
was before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most
religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in
being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages,
since even before he was generated
18
in energy, He was in virtue with the Father ingenerately, the Father
being always Father, as King always and Saviour always, having all
things in virtue, and being always in the same respects and in the same
way. This we have been forced to transmit to you, Beloved, as making
clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry and assent, and how
reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as long as we were
offended at statements which differed from our own, but received
without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a candid
examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to coincide
with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we have
already published."[1]
It will be seen that while the expressions "of the
substance of the Father," "begotten not made," and "One in substance,"
or "consubstantial with the Father," are all explicitly
anti-Arianistic, yet none of them contradicts the doctrines held by
Eusebius before the Council, so far as we can learn them from his
epistles to Alexander and Euphration and from the C'sarean creed. His
own explanation of those expressions, which it is to be observed was
the explanation given by the Council itself, and which therefore he was
fully warranted in accepting,--even though it may not have been so
rigid as to satisfy an Athanasius,--shows us how this is. He had
believed before that the Son partook of the Godhood in very truth, that
He was "begotten," and therefore "not made," if "made" implied
something different from "begotten," as the Nicene Fathers held that it
did; and he had believed before that the "Son of God has no resemblance
to created' things, but is in every respect like the Father only who
begat him, and that He is of no other substance or essence than the
Father," and therefore if that was what the word "Consubstantial"
(<greek>omoousios</greek>) meant he could not do otherwise
than accept that too.
It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was still
before the eyes of Eusebius, and was the cause of his hesitation in
assenting to the various changes, especially to the use of the word
<greek>ouoousios</greek>, which had been a Sabellian word
and had been rejected on that account by the Synod of Antioch, at which
Paul of Samosata had been condemned some sixty years before.
It still remains to explain Eusebius' sanction of
the anathemas attached to the creed which expressly condemn at least
one of the beliefs which he had himself formerly held, viz.: that the
"Father was before the Son," or as he puts it elsewhere, that "He who
is begat him who was not." The knot might of course be simply cut by
supposing an act of hypocrisy on his part, but the writer is convinced
that such a conclusion does violence to all that we know of Eusebius
and of his subsequent treatment of the questions involved in this
discussion. It is quite possible to suppose that a real change of
opinion on his part took place during the sessions of the Council.
Indeed when we realize how imperfect and incorrect a conception of
Arianism he had before the Council began, and how clearly its true
bearing was there brought out by its enemies, we can see that he could
not do otherwise than change; that he must have become either an out
and-out Arian, or an opponent of Arianism as he did. When he learned,
and learned for the first time, that Arianism meant the denial of all
essential divinity to Christ, and when he saw that it involved the
ascription of mutability and of other finite attributes to him, he must
either change entirely his views on those points or he must leave the
Arian party. To him who with all his subordinationism had laid in all
his writings so much stress on the divinity of the Word (even though he
had not realized exactly what that divinity involved) it would have
been a revolution in his Christian life and faith to have admitted what
he now learned that Arianism involved. Sabellianism had been his dread,
but now this new fear, which had aroused so large a portion of the
Church, seized him too, and he felt that stand must be made against
this too great separation of Father and Son, which was leading to
dangerous results. Under the pressure of this fear it is not surprising
that he should become convinced that the Arian formula--"there was a
time when the Son was not "--involved serious consequences, and that
Alexander and his followers should have succeeded in pointing out to
him its untruth, because it led necessarily to a false conclusion. It
is not surprising, moreover, that they should have succeeded in
explaining to him at least
19
partially their belief, which, as his epistle to Alexander shows, had
before been absolutely incomprehensible, that the Son was generated
from all eternity, and that therefore the Father did not exist before
him in a temporal sense.
He says toward the close of his epistle to the
C'sarean church that he had not been accustomed to use such expressions
as "There was a time when he was not," "He came to be from nothing,"
etc. And there is no reason to doubt that he speaks the truth. Even in
his epistles to Alexander and Euphration he does not use those phrases
(though he does defend the doctrine taught by the first of them), nor
does Arius himself, in the epistle to Alexander upon which Eusebius
apparently based his knowledge of the system, use those expressions,
although he too teaches the same doctrine. The fact is that in that
epistle Arius studiously avoids such favorite Arian phrases as might
emphasize the differences between himself and Alexander, and Eusebius
seems to have avoided them for the same reason. We conclude then that
Eusebius was not an Arian (nor an adherent of Lucian) before 318, that
soon after that date he became an Arian in the sense in which he
understood Arianism, but that during the Council of Nic'a he ceased to
be one in any sense. His writings in later years confirm the course of
doctrinal development which we have supposed went on in his mind. He
never again defends Arian doctrines in his works, and yet he never
becomes an Athanasian in his emphasis upon the
<greek>omoousion</greek>. In fact he represents a mild
orthodoxy, which is always orthodox- when measured by the Nicene creed
as interpreted by the Nicene Council--and yet is always mild. Moreover,
he never acquired an affection for the word
<greek>omoousios</greek>, which to his mind was bound up
with too many evil associations ever to have a pleasant sound to him.
He therefore studiously avoided it in his own writings, although
clearly showing that he believed fully in what the Nicene Council had
explained it to mean. It must be remembered that during many years of
his later life he was engaged in controversy with Marcellus, a
thorough-going Sabellian, who had been at the time of the Council one
of the strongest of Athanasius' colleagues. In his contest with him it
was again anti-Sabellianistic polemics which absorbed him and increased
his distaste for <greek>omoousion</greek> and minimized his
emphasis upon the distinctively anti-Arianistie doctrines formulated at
Nic'a. For any except the very wisest minds it was a matter of enormous
difficulty to steer between the two extremes in those times of strife;
and while combating Sabeilianism not to fall into Arianism, and while
combating the latter not to be engulfed in the former. That Eusebius
under the constant pressure of the one fell into the other at one time,
and was in occasional danger of falling into it again in later years,
can hardly be cited as an evidence either of wrong heart or of weak
head. An Athanasius he was not, but neither was he an unsteady
weather-cock, or an hypocritical time-server.
§ 6. The Council of Niccea.
At the Council of Nic'a, which met pursuant to an
imperial summons in the year 315 Ensebius played a very prominent part.
A description of the opening scenes of the Council is given in his Vita
Constantini, III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had entered in pomp and had
taken his seat, a bishop who sat next to him upon his right arose and
delivered in his honor the opening oration, to which the Emperor
replied in a brief Latin address. There can be no doubt that this
bishop was our Eusebius. Sozomen (H. E. I. 19) states it directly; and
Eusebius, although he does not name the speaker, yet refers to him, as
he had referred to the orator at the dedication of Paulinus' church at
Tyre, in such a way as to make it clear that it was himself; and
moreover in his Fita Constantini, I. 1, he mentions the fact that he
had in the midst of an assembly of the servants of God addressed an
oration to the Emperor on the occasion of the latter's vicennalia, i.e.
in 325 A.D. On the other hand, however, Theodoret (H. E. I. 7) states
that this opening oration was delivered by Eustathius, bishop of
Antioch; while Theodore of Mopsuestia and Philostorgius (according to
Nicetas Choniates, Thes. de arthod. rid. V. 7) assign it to Alexander
of Alexandria. As Lightfoot suggests, it is possible to explain the
discrepancy in the reports by
20
supposing that Eustathius and Alexander, the two great patriarchs,
first addressed a few words to the Emperor and that then Eusebius
delivered the regular oration. This supposition is not at all unlikely,
for it would be quite proper for the two highest ecclesiastics present
to welcome the Emperor formally in behalf of the assembled prelates,
before the regular oration was delivered by Eusebius. At the same time,
the supposition that one or the other of the two great patriarchs must
have delivered the opening address was such a natural one that it may
have been adopted by Theodoret and the other writers referred to
without any historical basis. It is in any case certain that the
regular oration was delivered by Eusebius himself (see the convincing
arguments adduced by Stroth, p. xxvii. sq.). This oration is no longer
extant, but an idea of its character may be formed from the address
delivered by Eusebius at the Emperor's tricennalia (which is still
extant under the title De laudibus Canstantini; see below, p. 43) and
from the general tone of his Life of Constantine. It was avowedly a
panegyric, and undoubtedly as fulsome as it was possible to make it,
and his powers in that direction were by no means slight.
That Eusebius, instead of the bishop of some more
prominent church, should have been selected to deliver the opening
address, may have been in part owing to his recognized standing as the
most learned man and the most famous writer in the Church, in part to
the fact that he was not as pronounced a partisan as some of his
distinguished brethren; for instance, Alexander of Alexandria, and
Eusebius of Nicomedia; and finally in some measure to his intimate
relations with the Emperor. How and when his intimacy with the latter
grew up we do not know. As already remarked, he seems to have become
personally acquainted with him many years before, when Constantine
passed through C'sarea in the train of Diocletian, and it may be that a
mutual friendship, which was so marked in later years, began at that
time. However that may be, Eusebius seems to have possessed special
advantages of one kind or another, enabling him to come into personal
contact with official circles, and once introduced to imperial notice,
his wide learning, sound common sense, genial temper and broad charity
would insure him the friendship of the Emperor himself, or of any other
worthy officer of state. We have no record of an intimacy between
Constantine and Eusebius before the Council of Nic'a, but many clear
intimations of it after that time. In fact, it is evident that during
the last decade at least of the Emperor's life, few, if any, bishops
stood higher in his esteem or enjoyed a larger measure of his
confidence. Compare for instance the records of their conversations
(contained in the Vita Canstantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their
correspondence (ib. II. 46, III. 61, IV. 35 and 36), and the words of
Constantine himself (ib. III. 60). The marked attention paid by him to
the speeches delivered by Eusebius in his presence (ib. IV. 33 and 46)
is also to be noticed. Eusebius' intimacy with the imperial family is
shown likewise in the tone of the letter which he wrote to Constantia,
the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness
of Christ which she had asked him to send her. The frankness and
freedom with which he remonstrates with her for what he considers
mistaken zeal on her part, reveal a degree of familiarity which could
have come only from long and cordial relations between himself and his
royal correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore may have combined
to indicate Eusebius as the most fitting person to deliver the oration
in honor of the Emperor at the Council of Nic'a, there can be little
doubt that Constantine's personal friendship for him had much to do
with his selection. The action of the Council on the subject of
Arianism, and Eusebius' conduct in the matter, have already been
discussed. Of the bishops assembled at the Council, not far from three
hundred in number (the reports of eye-witnesses vary from two hundred
and fifty to three hundred and eighteen), all but two signed the Nicene
creed as adopted by the Council. These two, both of them Egyptians,
were banished with Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
Theognis of Nic'a, who subscribed the creed itself but refused to
assent to its anathemas, were also banished for a time, but soon
yielded, and were restored to their churches.
Into the other purposes for which the Nicene Council
was called,--the settlement of the dispute respecting the time of
observing Easter and the healing of the Meletian schism,--it is not
neces-
21
sary to enter here. We have no record of the part which Eusebius took
in these transactions. Lightfoot has abundantly shown (p. 313 sq.) that
the common supposition that Eusebius was the author of the paschal
cycle of nineteen years is false, and that there is no reason to
suppose that he had anything particular to do with the decision of the
paschal question at this Council. § 7. Continuance of the Arian
Controversy. Eusebius' Relations to the Two Parties.
The Council of Nic'a did not bring the Arian
controversy to an end. The orthodox party was victorious, it is true,
but the Arians were still determined, and could not give up their
enmity against the opponents of Arius, and their hope that they might
in the end turn the tables on their antagonists. Meanwhile, within a
few years after the Council, a quarrel broke out between our Eusebius
and Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, a resolute supporter of Nicene
orthodoxy. According to Socrates (H. E. I. 23) and Sozomen (H. E. II.
18) Eustathius accused Eusebius of perverting the Nicene doctrines,
while Eusebius denied the charge, and in turn taxed Eustathius with
Sabellianism. The quarrel finally became so serious that it was deemed
necessary to summon a Council for the investigation of Eustathius'
orthodoxy and the settlement of the dispute. This Council met in
Antioch in 330 A.D. (see Tillemont, VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion
of the date), and was made up chiefly of bishops of Arian or semi-Arian
tendencies. This fact, however, brings no discredit upon Eusebius. The
Council was held in another province, and he can have had nothing to do
with its composition. In fact, convened, as it was, in Eustathius' own
city, it must have been legally organized; and indeed Eustathius
himself acknowledged its jurisdiction by appearing before it to answer
the charges made against him. Theodoret's absurd account of the origin
of the synod and of the accusations brought against Eustathius (H. E.
I. 21) bears upon its face the stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele
has shown (Canciliengeschichte, I. 451), hopelessly in error in its
chronology. It is therefore to be rejected as quite worthless. The
decision of the Council doubtless fairly represented the views of the
majority of the bishops of that section, for we know that Arianism had
a very strong hold there. To think of a packed Council and of illegal
methods of procedure in procuring the verdict against Eustathius is
both unnecessary and unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the
deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric and his banishment by the
Emperor to Illyria, where he afterward died. There is a division of
opinion among our sources in regard to the immediate successor of
Eustathius. All of them agree that Eusebius was asked to become bishop
of Antioch, but that he refused the honor, and that Euphronius was
chosen in his stead. Socrates and Sozomen, however, inform us that the
election of Eusebius took place immediately after the deposition of
Eustathius, while Theodoret (H. E. I. 22) names Eulalius as Eustathius'
immediate successor, and states that he lived but a short time, and
that Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret is Supported by
Jerome (Chron., year of Abr. 2345) and by Philostorgius (H. E. III.
15), both of whom insert a bishop Eulalius between Eustathius and
Euphronius. It is easier to suppose that Socrates and Sozomen may have
omitted so unimportant a name at this point than that the other three
witnesses inserted it without warrant. Socrates indeed implies in the
same chapter that his knowledge of these affairs is limited, and it is
not surprising that Eusebius' election, which caused a great stir,
should have been connected in the mind of later writers immediately
with Eustathius' deposition, and the intermediate steps forgotten. It
seems probable, therefore, that immediately after the condemnation of
Eustathius, Eulalius was appointed in his place, perhaps by the same
Council, and that after his death, a few months later, Eusebius, who
had meanwhile gone back to C'sarea, was elected in due order by another
Council of neighboring bishops summoned for the purpose, and that he
was supported by a large party of citizens. It is noticeable that the
letter written by the Emperor to the Council, which wished to transfer
Eusebius to Antioch (see Vita Const. III. 62), mentions in its
salutation the names of five bishops, but among them is only one
(Theodotus who is elsewhere named as present at the Council which
deposed Eusta-
22
thius, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nic'a, as well as
others whom we know to have been on hand on that occasion, are not
referred to by the Emperor. This fact certainly seems to point to a
different council.
It is greatly to Eusebius' credit that he refused
the call extended to him. Had he been governed simply by selfish
ambition he would certainly have accepted it, for the patriarchate of
Antioch stood at that time next to Alexandria in point of honor in the
Eastern Church. The Emperor commended him very highly for his decision,
in his epistles to the people of Antioch and to the Council (Vita
Const. III. 60, 62 ), and in that to Eusebius himself (ib. III. 61). He
saw in it a desire on Eusebius' part to observe the ancient canon of
the Church, which forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to
another. But that in itself can hardly have been sufficient to deter
the latter from accepting the high honor offered him, for it was broken
without scruple on all sides. It is more probable that he saw that the
schism of the Antiochenes would be embittered by the induction into the
bishopric of that church of Eustathius' chief opponent, and that he did
not feel that he had a right so to divide the Church of God. Eusebius'
general character, as known to us, justifies us in supposing that this
high motive had much to do with his decision. We may suppose also that
so difficult a place can have had no very great attractions for a man
of his age and of his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. In
C'sarea he had spent his life; there he had the great library of
Pamphilus at his disposal, and leisure to pursue his literary work. In
Antioch he would have found himself compelled to plunge into the midst
of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, and would have been obliged to
devote his entire attention to the performance of his official duties.
His own tastes therefore must have conspired with his sense of duty to
lead him to reject the proffered call and to remain in the somewhat
humbler station which he already occupied.
Not long after the deposition of Eustathius, the
Arians and their sympathizers began to work more energetically to
accomplish the ruin of Athanasius, their greatest foe. He had become
Alexander's successor as bishop of Alexandria in the year 326, and was
the acknowledged head of the orthodox party. If he could be brought
into discredit, there might be hopes of restoring Arius to his position
in Alexandria, and of securing for Arianism a recognition, and finally
a dominating influence in the church at large. To the overthrow of
Athanasius therefore all good Arians bent their energies. They found
ready accomplices in the schismatical Meletians of Egypt, who were
bitter enemies of the orthodox church of Alexandria. It was useless to
accuse Athanasius of heterodoxy; he was too widely known as the pillar
of the orthodox faith. Charges must be framed of another sort, and of a
sort to stir up the anger of the Emperor against him. The Arians
therefore and the Meletians began to spread the most vile and at the
same time absurd stories about Athanasius (see especially the latter's
Apol. c. Arian. § 59 sq.). These at last became so notorious that
the Emperor summoned Athanasius to appear and make his defense before a
council of bishops to be held in C'sarea (Sozomen, H. E. II. 25;
Theodoret, H. E. I. 28). Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council
would be composed wholly of his enemies, and that it would therefore be
impossible to secure fair play, excused himself and remained away. But
in the following year (see Sozomen, H. E. II, 25) he received from the
Emperor a summons to appear before a council at Tyre. The summons was
too peremptory to admit of a refusal, and Athanasius therefore
attended, accompanied by many of his devoted adherents (see Sozomen,
ib.; Theodoret, H. E. I. 30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28; Athanasius, Apol.
c. Arian. § 71 sq.; Eusebius, Vita Const. IV. 41 sq., and
Epiphanius, H'r. LXVIII. 8). After a time, perceiving that he had no
chance of receiving fair play, he suddenly withdrew from the Council
and proceeded directly to Constantinople, in order to lay his case
before the Emperor himself, and to induce the latter to allow him to
meet his accusers in his presence, and plead his cause before him.
There was nothing for the Synod to do after his flight but to sustain
the charges brought against him, some of which he had not stayed to
refute, and to pass condemnation upon him. Besides various immoral and
sacrilegious deeds of which he was accused, his refusal to appear
before the Council of
23
C'sarea the previous year was made an important item of the
prosecution. It was during this Council that Potamo flung at Eusebius
the taunt of cowardice, to which reference was made above, and which
doubtless did much to confirm Eusebius' distrust of and hostility to
the Athanasian party-Whether Eusebius of C'sarea, as is commonly
supposed, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, or some other bishop, presided at
this Council we are not able to determine. The account of Epiphanius
seems to imply that the former was presiding at the time that Potamo
made his untimely accusation. Our sources are, most of them, silent on
the matter, but according to Valesius, Eusebius of Nicomedia is named
by some of them, but which they are I have not been able to discover.
We learn from Socrates (H. E. I. 28), as well as from other sources,
that this Synod of Tyre was held in the thirtieth year of Constantine's
reign, that is, between July, 334, and July, 335. As the Council was
closed only in time for the bishops to reach Jerusalem by July, 335, it
is probable that it was convened in 335 rather than in 334. From
Sozomen (H. E. II. 25) we learn also that the Synod of C'sarea had been
held the preceding year, therefore in 333 or 334 (the latter being the
date commonly given by historians). While the Council of Tyre was still
in session, the bishops were commanded by Constantine to proceed
immediately to Jerusalem to take part in the approaching festival to be
held there on the occasion of his tricennalia. The scene was one of
great splendor. Bishops were present from all parts of the world, and
the occasion was marked by the dedication of the new and magnificent
basilica which Constantine had erected upon the site of Calvary
(Theodoret, I. 31; Socrates, I. 28 and 33; Sozomen, II. 26; Eusebius,
Vita Canst. IV. 41 and 43). The bishops gathered in Jerusalem at this
time held another synod before separating. In this they completed the
work begun at Tyre, by re-admitting Arius and his adherents to the
communion of the Church (see Socrates, 1. 33, and Sozomen, II. 27).
According to Sozomen the Emperor, having been induced to recall Arius
from banishment in order to reconsider his case, was presented by the
latter with a confession of faith, which was so worded as to convince
Constantine of his orthodoxy. He therefore sent Arius and his companion
Euzoius to the bishops assembled in Jerusalem with the request that
they would examine the confession, and if they were satisfied with its
orthodoxy would re-admit them to communion. The Council, which was
composed largely of Arius' friends and sympathizers, was only too glad
to accede to the Emperor's request.
Meanwhile Athanasius had induced Constantine, out of
a sense of justice, to summon the bishops that had condemned him at
Tyre to give an account of their proceedings before the Emperor himself
at Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless, not altogether
welcome summons came while the bishops were at Jerusalem, and the
majority of them at once returned home in alarm, while only a few
answered the call and repaired to Constantinople. Among these were
Eusebius of Nicomedia, Theognis of Nic'a, Patrophilus of Scythopolis,
and other prominent Arians, and with them our Eusebius (Athanasius,
Apol. c. Arian. §§ 86 and 87; Socrates, I. 33-35; Sozomen,
II. 28). The accusers of Athanasius said nothing on this occasion in
regard to his alleged immoralities, for which he had been condemned at
Tyre, but made another equally trivial accusation against him, and the
result was his banishment to Gaul. Whether Constantine banished him
because he believed the charge brought against him, or because he
wished to preserve him from the machinations of his enemies (as
asserted by his son Constantine, and apparently believed by Athanasius
himself; see his Apol. c. Arian. § 87), or because he thought that
Athanasius' absence would allay the troubles in the Alexandrian church
we do not know. The latter supposition seems most probable. In any case
he was not recalled from banishment until after Constantine's death.
Our Eusebius has been severely condemned by many historians for the
part taken by him in the Eustathian controversy and especially in the
war against Athanasius. In justice to him a word or two must be spoken
in his defense. So far as his relations to Eustathius are concerned, it
is to be noticed that the latter commenced the controversy by accusing
Eusebius of heterodoxy. Eusebius himself did not begin the quarrel, and
very likely had no desire to engage in any such doctrinal strife; but
he was compelled to defend him-
24
self, and in doing so he could not do otherwise than accuse Eustathius
of Sabellianism; for if the latter was not satisfied with Eusebius'
orthodoxy, which Eusebius himself believed to be truly Nicene, then he
must be leaning too far toward the other extreme; that is, toward
Sabellianism. There is no reason to doubt that Eusebius was perfectly
straightforward and honorable throughout the whole controversy, and at
the Council of Antioch itself. That he was not actuated by unworthy
motives, or by a desire for revenge, is evinced by his rejection of the
proffered call to Antioch, the acceptance of which would have given him
so good an opportunity to triumph over his fallen enemy. It must be
admitted, in fact, that Eusebius comes out of this controversy without
a stain of any kind upon his character. He honestly believed Eustathius
to be a Sabellian, and he acted accordingly.
Eusebius has been blamed still more severely for his
treatment of Athanasius. But again the facts must be looked at
impartially. It is necessary always to remember that Sabellianism was
in the beginning and remained throughout his life the heresy which he
most dreaded, and which he had perhaps most reason to dread. He must,
even at the Council of Nic'a, have suspected Athanasius, who laid so
much stress upon the unity of essence on the part of Father and Son, of
a leaning toward Sabellianistic principles; and this suspicion must
have been increased when he discovered, as he believed, that
Athanasitis' most staunch supporter, Eustathius, was a genuine
Sabellian. Moreover, on the other side, it is to be remembered that
Eusebius of Nicomedia, and all the other leading Arians, had signed the
Nicene creed and had proclaimed themselves thoroughly in sympathy with
its teaching. Our Eusebius, knowing the change that had taken place in
his own mind upon the controverted points, may well have believed that
their views had undergone even a greater change, and that they were
perfectly honest in their protestations of orthodoxy. And finally, when
Arius himself presented a confession of faith which led the Emperor,
who had had a personal interview with him, to believe that he had
altered his views and was in complete harmony with the Nicene faith, it
is not surprising that our Eusebius, who was naturally unsuspicious,
conciliatory and peace-loving, should think the same thing, and be glad
to receive Arius back into communion, while at the same time remaining
perfectly loyal to the orthodoxy of the Nicene creed which he had
subscribed. Meanwhile his suspicions of the Arian party being in large
measure allayed, and his distrust of the orthodoxy of Athanasius and of
his adherents being increased by the course of events, it was only
natural that he should lend more or less credence to the calumnies
which were so industriously circulated against Athanasius. To charge
him with dishonesty for being influenced by these reports, which seem
to us so absurd and palpably calumnious, is quite unwarranted.
Constantine, who was, if not a theologian, at least a clear-headed and
sharp-sighted man, believed them, and why should Eusebius not have done
the same? The incident which took place at the Council of Tyre in
connection with Potamo and himself was important; for whatever doubts
he may have had up to that time as to the truth of the accusations made
against Athanasius and his adherents, Potamo's conduct convinced him
that the charges of tyranny and high-handed dealing brought against the
whole party were quite true. It could not be otherwise than that he
should believe that the good of the Alexandrian church, and therefore
of the Church at large, demanded the deposition of the seditious and
tyrannous archbishop, who was at the same time quite probably
Sabellianistic in his tendencies. It must in justice be noted that
there is not the slightest reason to suppose that our Eusebius had
anything to do with the dishonorable intrigues of the Arian party
throughout this controversy. Athanasius, who cannot say enough in
condemnation of the tactics of Eusebius of Nicomedia and his
supporters, never mentions Eusebius of C'sarea in a tone of bitterness.
He refers to him occasionally as a member of the opposite party, but he
has no complaints to utter against him, as he has against the others.
This is very significant, and should put an end to all suspicions of
unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part. It is to be observed that the
latter, though having good cause as he believed to condemn Athanasius
and his adherents, never acted as a leader in the war against them. His
name, if mentioned at all, occurs always toward the end of the list as
one of
25
the minor combatants, although his position and his learning would have
entitled him to take the most prominent position in the whole affair,
if he had cared to. He was but true to his general character in
shrinking from such a controversy, and in taking part in it only in so
far as his conscience compelled him to. We may suspect indeed that he
would not have made one of the small party that repaired to
Constantinople in response to the Emperor's imperious summons had it
not been for the celebration of Constantine's tricennalia, which was
taking place there at the time, and at which he delivered, on the
special invitation of the Emperor and in his presence, one of his
greatest orations. Certain it is, from the account which he gives in
his Vita Constantini, that both in Constantinople and in Jerusalem the
festival of the tricennalia, with its attendant ceremonies, interested
him much more than did the condemnation of Athanasius.
§ 8. Eusebius and Marcellus.
It was during this visit to Constantinople that
another synod was held, at which Eusebius was present, and the result
of which was the condemnation and deposition of the bishop Marcellus of
Ancyra (see Socrates, I. 36; Sozomen, II. 33; Eusebius, Contra Marc.
II. 4). The attitude of our Eusebius toward Marcellus is again
significant of his theological tendencies. Marcellus had written a book
against Asterius, a prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the
Nicene orthodoxy, he had laid himself open to the charge of
Sabellianism. On this account he was deposed by the Constantinopolitan
Synod, and our Eusebius was urged to write a work exposing his errors
and defending the action of the Council. As a consequence he composed
his two works against Marcelins which will be described later. That
Eusebius, if not in the case of Athanasius and possibly not in that of
Eustathius, had at least in the present case good ground for the belief
that Marcellus was a Sabellian, or Sabellianistic in tendency, is
abundantly proved by the citations which he makes from Marcellus' own
works; and, moreover, his judgment and that of the Synod was later
confirmed even by Athanasius himself. Though not suspecting Marcellus
for some time, Athanasius finally became convinced that he had deviated
from the path of orthodoxy, and, as Newman has shown (in his
introduction to Athanasius' fourth discourse against the Arians, Oxford
Library of the Fathers, vol. 19, p. 503 sq.), directed that discourse
against his errors and those of his followers.
The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been
the last in which Eusebius was engaged, and it was opposition to the
dreaded heresy of Sabellius which moved him here as in all the other
cases. It is important to emphasize, however, what is often overlooked,
that though Eusebius during these years was so continuously engaged in
controversy with one or another of the members of the anti-Arian party,
there is no evidence that he ever deviated from the doctrinal position
which he took at the Council of Nic'a. After that date it was never
Arianism which he consciously supported; it was never the Nicene
orthodoxy which he opposed. He supported those members of the old Arian
party who had signed the Nicene creed and protested that they accepted
its teaching, against those members of the opposite party whom he
believed to be drifting toward Sabellianism, or acting tyrannously and
unjustly toward their opponents. The anti-Sabellianistic interest
influenced him all the time, but his post-Nicene writings contain no
evidence that he had fallen back into the Arianizing position which he
had held before 325. They reveal, on the contrary, a fair type of
orthodoxy, colored only by its decidedly anti-Sabellian emphasis.
§ 9. The Death of Eusebius.
In less than two years after the celebration of his
tricennalia, on May 22, 337 A.D., the great Constantine breathed his
last, in Nicomedia, his former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man,
produced a lasting testimonial of his own unbounded affection and
admiration for the first Christian emperor, in his Life of Constantine.
Soon afterward he followed his imperial friend at the
26
advanced age of nearly, if not quite, eighty years. The exact date of
his death is unknown, but it can be fixed approximately. We know from
Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) that in the summer of 341, when a council was
held at Antioch (on the date of the Council, which we are able to fix
with great exactness, see Hefele, Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.)
Acacius, Eusebius' successor, was already bishop of C'sarea. Socrates
(H. E. II. 4) and Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) both mention the death of
Eusebius and place it shortly before the death of Constantine the
younger, which took place early in 340 (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp.
IV. p. 357 sq.), and after the intrigues had begun which resulted in
Athanasius' second banishment. We are thus led to place Eusebius' death
late in the year 339, or early in the year 340 (cf. Lightfoot's
article, p. 318).
CHAPTER II.
THE WRITINGS OF
EUSEBIUS. § I. Eusebius as a Writer.
EUSEBIUS was one of the most voluminous writers of
antiquity, and his labors covered almost every field of theological
learning. In the words of Lightfoot he was "historian, apologist,
topographer, exegete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn." It
is as an historian that he is best known, but the importance of his
historical writings should not cause us to overlook, as modern scholars
have been prone to do, his invaluable productions in other departments.
Light-foot passes a very just judgment upon the importance of his works
in the following words: "If the permanent utility of an author's labors
may be taken as a test of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a
very high place indeed. The Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique
and indispensable. The Chronicle is the vast storehouse of information
relating to the ancient monarchies of the world. The Preparation and
Demonstration are the most important contributions to theology in their
own province. Even the minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine,
the Life of Constantine, the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to
Marinus, and others, would leave an irreparable blank, if they were
obliterated. And the same permanent value attaches also to his more
technical treatises. The Canons and Sections have never yet been
superseded for their particular purpose. The Topography of Palestine is
the most important contribution to our knowledge in its own department.
In short, no ancient ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under
heavier obligations."
If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of
brilliant genius we shall be disappointed. He did not possess a great
creative mind like Origen's or Augustine's. His claim to greatness
rests upon his vast erudition and his sterling sense. His powers of
acquisition were remarkable and his diligence in study unwearied. He
had at his command undoubtedly more acquired material than any man of
his age, and he possessed that true literary and historical instinct
which enabled him to select from his vast stores of knowledge those
things which it was most worth his while to tell to the world. His
writings therefore remain valuable while the works of many others,
perhaps no less richly equipped than himself for the mission of adding
to the sum of human knowledge, are entirely forgotten. He thus had the
ability to do more than acquire; he had the ability to impart to others
the very best of that which he acquired, and to make it useful to them.
There is not in his writings the brilliancy which we find in some
others, there is not the same sparkle and freshness of new and
suggestive thought, there is not the same impress of an overmastering
individuality which transforms everything it touches. There is,
however, a true and solid merit which marks his works almost without
exception, and raises them above the commonplace. His exegesis is
superior to that of most of his contemporaries, and his apologetics is
marked by fairness of statement, breadth of treatment, and instinctive
appreciation of the difference between the important and the
unimportant points under discussion, which give to his apologetic works
a
27
permanent value. His wide acquaintance, too, with other systems than
his own, and with the products of Pagan as well as Christian thought,
enabled him to see things in their proper relations and to furnish a
treatment of the great themes of Christianity adapted to the wants of
those who had looked beyond the confines of a single school. At the
same time it must be acknowledged that he was not always equal to the
grand opportunities which his acquaintance with the works and lives of
other men and other peoples opened before him. He does not always
reveal the possession of that high quality of genius which is able to
interpret the most various forces and to discover the higher principles
of unity which alone make them intelligible; indeed, he often loses
himself completely in a wilderness of thoughts and notions which have
come to him from other men and other ages, and the result is dire
confusion.
We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the
works of Eusebius for evidences of a refined literary taste, or for any
of the charms which attach to the writings of a great master of
composition. His style is, as a rule, involved and obscure, often
painfully rambling and incoherent. This quality is due in large part to
the desultoriness of his thinking. He did not often enough clearly
define and draw the boundaries of his subject before beginning to write
upon it. He apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen
in hand, and did not subject what he had thus produced to a
sufficiently careful revision, if to any revision at all. Thoughts and
suggestions poured in upon him while he was writing; and he was not
always able to resist the temptation to insert them as they came, often
to the utter perversion of his train of thought, and to the ruin of the
coherency and perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged, too,
that his literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever
a flight of eloquence is attempted by him, as it is altogether too
often, his style becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such
times his skill in mixing metaphors is something astounding (compare,
for instance, H. E. II. 14). On the other hand, his works contain not a
few passages of real beauty. This is especially true of his Martyrs of
Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and deep sympathy with
the heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself and to
describe their sufferings in language of genuine fire or pathos. At
times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in mind,
and when the subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to
demand rhetorical adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his
language, showing in such cases that his commonly defective style is
not so much the consequence of an inadequate command of the Greek
tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.
But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius'
writings, we ought not to fail to give him due credit for the
conscientiousness and faithfulness with which he did his work. He wrote
often, it is true, too rapidly for the good of his style, and he did
not always revise his works as carefully as he should have done; but we
seldom detect undue haste in the collection of materials or
carelessness and negligence in the use of them. He seems to have felt
constantly the responsibilities which rested upon him as a scholar and
writer, and to have done his best to meet those responsibilities. It is
impossible to avoid contrasting him in this respect with the most
learned man of the ancient Latin Church, St. Jerome. The haste and
carelessness with which the latter composed his De Viris Illustribus,
and with which he translated and continued Eusebius' Chronicle, remain
an everlasting disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some
others of Jerome's works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our
esteem. He was at least conscientious and honest in his work, and never
allowed himself to palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his
readers by sophistries, misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to
put the reader into possession of the knowledge which he had himself
acquired, but was always conscientious enough to stop there, and not
attempt to make fancy play the r"le of fact.
One other point, which was mentioned some pages
back, and to which Lightfoot calls particular attention, should be
referred to here, because of its bearing upon the character of
Eusebius' writings. He was, above all things, an apologist; and the
apologetic aim governed both the selection of his subjects and method
of his treatment. He composed none of his works with a
28
purely scientific aim. He thought always of the practical result to be
attained, and his selection of material and his choice of method were
governed by that. And yet we must recognize the fact that this aim was
never narrowing in its effects. He took a broad view of apologetics,
and in his lofty conception of the Christian religion he believed that
every field of knowledge might be laid under tribute to it. He was bold
enough to be confident that history, philosophy, and science all
contribute to our understanding and appreciation of divine truth; and
so history and philosophy and science were studied and handled by him
freely and fearlessly. He did not feel the need of distorting truth of
any kind because it might work injury to the religion which he
professed. On the contrary, he had a sublime faith which led him to
believe that all truth must have its place and its mission, and that
the cause of Christianity will be benefited by its discovery and
diffusion. As an apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had an
interest for him; and he was saved that pettiness of mind and
narrowness of outlook which are sometimes characteristic of those who
write with a purely practical motive.
§ 2. Catalogue of his Works.
There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius' extant works. The
only one which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of
Migne: Eusebii Pamphili, C'sarea Palestin' Episcopi, Opera omnia qu'
extant, curis variorum, nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri,
Bernardi Montfauconii, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit et denuo
recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols (tom. XIX.-XXIV. of Migne's
Patrologia Gr'ca). This edition omits the works which are extant only
in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important Greek
fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The
edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be dispensed with.
References to it (under the simple title Opera) will be given below in
connection with those works which it contains. Many of Eusebius'
writings, especially the historical, have been published separately.
Such editions will be mentioned in their proper place in the Catalogue.
More or less incomplete lists of our author's
writings are given by Jerome (De vir. ill. 87); by Nicephorus Callistus
(H. E. VI. 37); by Ebedjesu (in Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18
sq.); by Photius (Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127); and by Suidas (who simply
copies the Greek version of Jerome). Among modern works all the lives
of Eusebius referred to in the previous chapter give more or less
extended catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned
there, valuable lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, Part II
chap. 72, and especially in Fabricius' Bibl. Gr'ca (ed. 1714), vol. VI.
p. 30 sq.
The writings of Eusebius that are known to us,
extant and non-extant, may be classified for convenience' sake under
the following heads: I. Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV.
Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI. Biblical Dictionaries. VII.
Orations. VIII. Epistles. IX. Spurious or doubtful works. The
classification is necessarily somewhat artificial, and claims to be
neither exhaustive nor exclusive. [1]
1. HISTORICAL WORKS.
Life of Pamphilus
(<greek>h</greek> <greek>tou</greek>
II<greek>amfilou</greek> <greek>biou</greek>
<greek>analrafh</greek>; see H. E. VI. 32). Eusebius
himself refers to this work in four passages (H. E. VI. 32, VII. 32,
VIII. 13, and Mart. Pal. c. In the last he informs us that it consisted
of three books. The work is mentioned also more than once by Jerome (De
vir. ill. 81; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34; Contra Ruf. I. 9),
who speaks of it in terms of praise, and in the last passage gives a
brief extract from the third book, which is, so far as known, the only
extant fragment of the work. The date of its composition can be fixed
within comparatively narrow limits. It must of course have been written
before the shorter recension of the Martyrs of Palestine, which
contains a reference to it (on its relation to the
29
longer recension, which does not mention it, see below, p. 30), and
also before the History (i.e. as early as 313 A.D. (?), see below, p.
45). On the other hand, it was written after Pamphilus' death (see H.
E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 310.
Martyrs of Palestine
(<greek>peri</greek> <greek>tpn</greek>
<greek>en</greek> II<greek>alaistanh</greek>
<greek>marturhsantwn</greek>). This work is extant in two
recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer has been preserved
entire only in a Syriac version, which was published, with English
translation and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A fragment of the original
Greek of this work as preserved by Sirecon Metaphrastes had previously
been published by Papebroch in the Acta Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64;
reprinted by Fabricius, II. p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded
as an extract. from Eusebius' Life Cureton's publication of the Syriac
version of the Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was a part of the
original of that work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of St.
Procopius, which were published by Valesius (in his edition of
Eusebius' Hist. Eccles. in a note on the first chapter of the Mart.
Pal.; reprinted by Cureton, Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according
to Cureton, Assemani's Acta SS. Martyrum Orient el Occidentalium, part
II. p. 169 sq. (Rom', 1748) contains another Syriac version of
considerable portions of this same work. The Syriac version published
by Cureton was made within less than a century after the composition of
the original work (the manuscript of it dates from 411 A.D.; see
Cureton, ib., preface, p. i.), perhaps within a few years after it, and
there is every reason to suppose that it represents that original with
considerable exactness. That Eusebius himself was the author of the
original cannot be doubted. In addition to this longer recension there
is extant in Greek a shorter form of the same work which is found
attached to the Ecclesiastical History in most MSS. of the latter. In
some of them it is placed between the eighth and ninth books, in others
at the close of the tenth book, while one MS. inserts it in the middle
of VIII. 13. In some of the most important MSS. it is wanting entirely,
as likewise in the translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot,
in the Syriac version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius'
History print it at the close of the eighth book. Migne gives it
separately in Opera, II. 1457 sq. In the present volume the translation
of it is given as an appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.
There can be no doubt that the shorter form is
younger than the longer. The mention of the Life of Pamphilus which is
contained in the shorter, but is not found in the corresponding passage
of the longer form would seem to indicate that the former was a
remodeling of the latter rather than the latter of the former (see
below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton and Lightfoot both point out, the
difference between the two works both in substance and in method is
such as to make it clear that the shorter form is a revised abridgment
of the longer. That Eusebius himself was the author of the shorter as
well as of the longer form is shown by the fact that not only in the
passages common to both recensions, but also in those peculiar to the
shorter one, the author speaks in the same person and as an eye-witness
of many of the events which he records. And still further, in Chap. 11
he speaks of having himself written the Life of Pamphilus in three
books, a notice which is wanting in the longer form and therefore must
emanate from the hand of the author of the shorter. It is interesting
to inquire after Eusebius' motive in publishing an abridged edition of
this work. Cureton supposes that he condensed it simply for the purpose
of inserting it in the second edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the
other hand, suggests that it may have formed "part of a larger work, in
which the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against the deaths of
the persecutors," and he is inclined to see in the brief appendix to
the eighth book of the History (translated below on p. 340) "a fragment
of the second part of the treatise of which the Martyrs of Palestine in
the shorter recension formed the first." The suggestion is, to say the
least, very plausible. If it be true, the attachment of the shorter
form of the Martyrs of Palestine to the Ecclesiastical History was
probably the work, not of Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or
copyists, and the disagreement among the various MSS. as to its
position in the History is more easily explained on this supposition
than on Cureton's theory that it was attached to a later edition of the
latter work by Eusebius himself.
30
The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine was
composed cannot be determined with certainty. It was at any rate not
published until after the first nine books of the Ecclesiastical
History (i.e. not before 313, see below, p. 45), for it is referred to
as a projected work in H. E. VIII. 13. 7. On the other hand, the
accounts contained in the longer recension bear many marks of having
been composed on the spot, while the impressions left by the martyrdoms
witnessed by the author were still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is
noticeable that in connection with the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom,
given in the shorter recension, reference is made to the Life of
Pamphilus as a book already published, while in the corresponding
account in the longer recension no such book is referred to. This would
seem to indicate that the Life of Pamphilus was written after the
longer, but before the shorter recension of the Martyrs. But on the
other hand the Life was written before the Ecclesiastical History (see
above, p. 29), and consequently before the publication of either
recension of the Martyrs. May it not be that the accounts of the
various martyrdoms were written, at least some of them, during the
persecution, but that they were not arranged, completed, and published
until 313, or later? If this be admitted we may suppose that the
account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon after his death and
before the Life was begun. When it was later embodied with the other
accounts in the one work On the Martyrs of Palestine it may have been
left just as it was, and it may not have occurred to the author to
insert a reference to the Life of Pamphilus which had meanwhile been
published. But when he came to abridge and in part rewrite for a new
edition the accounts of the various martyrdoms contained in the work On
Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the reader to the Life for
fuller particulars.
If we then suppose that the greater part of the
longer recension of the Martyrs was already complete before the end of
the persecution, it is natural to conclude that the whole work was
published at an early date, probably as soon as possible after the
first edition of the History. How much later the abridgment was made we
cannot tell. [1]
The differences between the two recensions lie
chiefly in the greater fullness of detail on the part of the longer
one. The arrangement and general mode of treatment is the same in both.
They contain accounts of the Martyrs that suffered in Palestine during
the years 303-310, most of whom Eusebius himself saw. Collection of
Ancient Martyrdoms (<greek>arkaiwn</greek>
<greek>marturiwn</greek>
<greek>sunagwgh</greek>). This work is mentioned by
Eusebius in his H. E. IV. 15, V. pr'f., 4, 21. These notices indicate
that it was not an original
31
composition, but simply a compilation; a collection of extant accounts
of martyrdoms which had taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is
no longer extant, but the accounts of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and
others at Smyrna, of the persecution in Lyons and Vienne, and of the
defense of Apollonius in Rome, which Eusebius inserts in his
Ecclesiastical History (IV. xS, V. 1, V. 21), are taken, as he informs
us, from this collection. As to the time of compilation, we can say
only that it antedates the composition of the earlier books of the
History (on whose date, see below, p. 45).
Chronicle (<greek>kronikoi</greek>
<greek>kanones</greek>). Eusebius refers to this work in
his Church History (I. 1), in his Pr'paratio Evang. X. 9, and at the
beginning of his Eclog' prophetica'. It is divided into two books, the
first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from
various sources, the second of chronological tables, which "exhibit in
parallel columns the succession of the rulers of different nations in
such a way that the reader can see at a glance with whom any given
monarch was contemporary." The tables "are accompanied by notes,
marking the years of some of the more remarkable historical even