Scanned text contains errors.
on some military expeditions. He died at Antioch, about A. D. 360. His enemies accused him of Sabellianism, but the truth of the charge is denied by Sozomen (iii. 5). He wrote several books enumerated by Jerome (de Script. 90), e. g. a treatise against the Jews, Homilies, &c. Some homilies on the Gospels, and about fifty on other subjects, are extant under his name; but they are probably spurious, and of more recent date. They were published at Paris, 1575, and at Antwerp, 1602. Some of the homilies ascribed to Eusebius of Caesa-reia, are attributed to this Eusebius. [G. E. L. C.]
EUSE'BIUS, MAGISTER SCRINIORUM, 0116 of
the commission of Nine appointed by Theodosius in* a. d. 429 to compile a code upon a plan which was afterwards abandoned for another. [DioooRUS, vol. i, p. 1018.] [J. T. G.]
EUSEBIUS, a monk of Nitria, a town of Egypt, to the west of the Canopic branch of the Nile, was one of the "four tall brothers" banished by Theophilus, bishop of Alexandria, for defending the opinions -of Origen, at the beginning of the fifth century, A. d. The three others were Dioscurus, Ammonius, and Euthymius. They fled to Con stantinople, where they were kindly received by Chrysostom, and have obtained a place in ecclesi astical history, from the fact that his protecting them was made a pretext for his deposition. There seems no doubt that they were men of real piety. (Sozomen. vi. 30 ; Neander, Kirchengesch. vol. ii. p. 1436.) [chrysostom; epiphanius.] [G.E.L.C.] . EUSE'BIUS, of myndus in Caria, a distin guished New Platonist and contemporary of Euna- pius, who mentions him (p. 48, ed. Boissonade), and ranks him in what is called the golden chain of New Platonists. Stobaeus, in his Sermones^ has preserved a considerable number of ethical frag ments from the work of one Eusebius, whom some consider to be the same as the New Platonist, whereas others are inclined to attribute them to a Stoic of that name. (Wyttenbaeh, ad Eztnap. p. 171.) [L. S.]
EUSEBIUS, of nicomedeia, the friend and protector of Arius, was maternally connected, though distantly, with the emperor Julian, arid born about a. d. 324. He was first bishop of Berytus (Beyrout) in Syria, and then of Nicome-deia, which Diocletian had made his residence, so that it was in fact the capital of the Eastern empire till Constantine fixed his court at Byzantium. He first comes under the notice of history by taking the part of Arius after his excommunication by Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. [ARlus.] He wrote a defence of the heretic to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, and the letter is preserved in Theodoret (i. 6). Eusebius states in it his belief that there is one Being Unbegotten and one Begotten by Him, but not from his substance, having no share in the nature or essence of the Unbegotten, but yet Trpos reXelav 6/noi6rfjra T€ Kal fiwd/jieus Toy
So warmly did Eusebius take part with Arius, that the Arian s were sometimes called Eusebians ; and at the Nicene council he exerted himself vigorously against the application of the term ouoovcrtos to the Son. But his opposition was unsuccessful, the Homoousians triumphed, and Eusebius joined his namesake of Caesareia in affixing his signature to the Creed, though he took the word in a sense which reduces it merely to ojjloios
. K«T* 0
He declined, however, to sign the anathema which the council issued against Arius, though not, as he says in the petition which he afterwards presented to the bishops, "because he differed* from the doctrine as settled at Nicaea, but because he doubted whether Arius really held what the anathema imputed to him." (Sozom. ii. 15.) But very soon after the council had broken up, Eusebius shewed a desire to revive the controversy, for which he was deprived of his see and banished into Gaul. On this occasion Constantine addressed a letter to the people of Nicomedeia, censuring their exiled bishop in the strongest manner, as disaffected to his government, as the principal supporter of heresy, and a man wholly regardless of truth. (Theodor. Hist.Eccl. i. 20.) But he did not long remain under the imperial displeasure. Constantia, the emperor's sister, was under the influence of an Arian presbyter, and was thereby induced to plead in favour of that party with her brother, and one result of her interference was the restoration of Eusebius to his see ; and he soon so completely regained Con-stantine's favour, as to be selected to administer baptism to him in his last illness. His Arian feelings however broke out again. He procured the deprivation ot Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, and, if we may believe Theodoret (i. 21), by suborning a woman to bring against him a false accusation of the most infamous kind. He was an active opponent of Athanasius, and exerted himself to procure the restoration of Arms to the full privileges of churchmanship, menacing Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, with deposition unless he at once admitted him to the holy communion, in which he would have succeeded but for the stidden death of Arius. .Soon after this Alexander died, and Eusebius managed to procure his own election to the vacant see, in defiance of a canon against translations agreed to at Nicaea. He died about a. d. 342.
Though Eusebius lies under the disadvantage of having his character handed down to posterity almost entirely by the description of theological enemies, yet it is difficult to imagine that he was in any way deserving of esteem. His signature to the Nicene creed was a gross evasion, nor can he be considered to have signed it merely as an article of peace, since he was ever afterwards a zealous opponent of its principles. It can scarcely be doubted that he was worldly and ambitious, and if Theo-doret's story above referred to be true, it would be horrible to think that a Christian bishop should have been guilty of such gross wickedness. At the same time, considering the entire absence of the critical element in the historians of that age, the violent bitterness of their feelings on subjects of theological controversy, and the fact that Theodoret wrote many years after Eusebius's death, we shall be slow to believe in such an accusation, which rests only on the authority of the most vehement of the church historians of the time, while Socrates, the most moderate and least credulous, merely says (i. 18), that Eustathius was deposed nominally for Sabellianism, " though some assign other causes;" and Sozomen (ii. 18) tells us, that some accused Eustathius of leading an irregular life;, but does not hint that this charge rested on a wicked contrivance of Eusebius. Athanasius himself gives another cause for the deposition of Eustathius—that Eusebius had accused him of slandering Helena, the mother of Constantine. (Athan,