A Dictionary of Greek and Roman biography and mythology

(Εὐσέβιος) of CAESAREIA, the father of ecclesiastical history, took the surname of Pamphili, to commemorate his devoted friendship for Pamphilus, bishop of Caesareia. He was born in Palestine about A. D. 264, towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Gallienus. He spent his youth in incessant study, and probably held some offices in the church of Caesareia. In A. D. 303, Diocletian's edict was issued, and the persecution of the Christians began. Pamphilus was imprisoned in 307, and was most affectionately attended on by Eusebius for two years, at the end of which time he suffered martyrdom and Eusebius fled to Tyre, where he was kindly received by the bishop Paulinus; but afterwards he removed to Egypt, and was imprisoned there in the course of the persecution. After his release he returned to Caesareia, and succeeded Agapius as bishop of that see about 315. He was summoned to the council of Nicaea in 327, and was there appointed to receive Constantine with a panegyrical oration, and to sit on his right hand. The course of events now made it necessary for him to form a distinct opinion on the relation of the first two Persons in the Trinity. There is no doubt that in many of his works, especially in those which he wrote before this time, but also in others, several expressions may be found inconsistent with each other, some of which can only be understood in a semiarian sense. Thus in the Demonstratio Evangelica he speaks of the Son as ἀφομοιώμενος τῶ Πατρὶ κατὰ παντὰ, ὃμοιος κατ̓ οὐσίαν. In the Praeparatio Evang. 4.3, he denies that the Son is like the Father ἁπλῶς ἀίδιος; for (he adds) ὁ Πατὴρ προϋπάρχει τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τῆς γενέδεως αὐτοῦ προὐφέδτηκε; only the Son is not created, and everything perishable must be separated from our conception of His nature. But with regard to all his earlier statements of doctrine, we must remember that till Arius's opinions, with their full bearings and consequences, were generally known, it was very possible for a person to use language apparently somewhat favourable to them, quite unintentionally, since the true fifth on the subject of our Lord's divinity had not yet been couched in certain formulae, of which the use after the controversy was mooted, became as it were the test of a man's opinions; nor had general attentio been called to the results of differences apparentl trifling. Eusebius's views on the subject seem to have been based on those of Origen, though indeed he deprecated the discussion of the question as above human comprehension, recommending men to be satisfied with the scriptural declaration, " So God loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever beliexeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life;" "not," as he argues," whosoever knows how He is generated from the Father." But in the Ecclesiastica Theologia (after the rise of Arianism) he declares (1.8, 9.5) against those who reckon Christ among the κτίσματα, asserting God to be the Father of Christ, but the Creator of all other beings. Again: in the Ecclesiastical History (10.4) he calls Him αὐτοεός, and in other places uses language which proves him to have fully believed in His divinity. He was, however, of course disposed to regard Arius with mildness, and wrote to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his defence; arguing that though Arius had called Christ κτίσμα Θεοῦ τέλειον, He had added ἀλλ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν κτισμάτων. Thus he took his seat at the council of Nicaea not indeed as a partizan of Arius, but as anxious to shield him from censure for opinions whose importance, either for good or evil, he considered exaggerated. He accordingly appeared there as head of the moderate section of the council, and drew up a creed which he hoped would satisfy both the extreme parties, of which the Arian was favoured by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicaea; while their opponents were led by Alexander, whose deacon Athanasius, afterwards so famous, accompanied him to the council, and rendered him great service. This formula, which is to be found in Socrates (Hist. Eccl. 1.5), chiefly differs from the Nicene Creed in containing the expression πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως (fromn Col. 1.15) instead of the deelaration that Christ is of the same substance with the Father, expressed in the adjective ὁμοούσιον; and the phrase "Very God of Very God" is not found in it after "God of God, Light of Light." This creed was accepted by Arius; but Alexander insisted on the addition of ὁμοούσιος, to which Constantine

himself was favourable, and a majority of the council decreed its insertion. Eusebius at first hesitated to sign it, but afterwards did so; because, as he told the people of Caesareia in a pastoral letter explanatory of the proceedings at the council (Socrat. 1.5), the emperor had assured him that by the phrase need only be understood an assertion that the Son of God is wholly different from every created being; and that as His nature is entirely spiritual, He was not born from the Father by any division, or separation, or other corporeal process. Eusebius, however, always retained his mild feelings on this subject; for he wished to reinstate Arius in his church, in opposition to Athanasius, and he was intimate with his namesake, the bishop of Nicomedeia, a decided Arian. Eusebius had a very strong feeling against pictures of our Lord, and other novelties, which were then creeping into the Church. When Constantia, the widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine, requested him to send her such a picture, he refused, and pronounced all such representations worthy only of heathenism. (Vit. Const. 1. 3. p. 1069.) These pictures he destroyed when they came in his way, considering them inconsistent with 2 Cor. 5.10 ("Though we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more"); and he greatly objected (Hist. Eccl. 7.18) to a practice prevalent at Caesareia of offering up figures of Christ as an act of thanksgiving for recovery from sickness. It cannot be denied that in some of his objections to pictures of our Lord, he appears to overlook the practical importance of His Incarnation to our Christian life. Eusebius remained in favour with the imperial family till his death. He was offered the see of Antioch on the death of Eustathius, but declined it, considering the practice of translations objectionable, and, indeed, contrary to one of the canons agreed upon at the recent council of Nicaea. For this moderation he was exceedingly praised by Constantine, who declared that he was universally considered worthy to be the bishop not of one city only, but almost of the whole world. (Socrat. H. E. 1.18.) He died about A. D. 340; so that his birth, his elevation to high office, and his death, nearly coincide in time with those of his imperial patron.

[G.E.L.C]