SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
SermonIndex.net : Christian Books : Letter E

A Dictionary Of Christian Biography And Literature by Henry Wace

Letter E

Ebionism and Ebionites
Ebionism and Ebionites. The name Ebionite first occurs in Irenaeus (c.180-190). It was repeated, probably from him, by Hippolytus (c.225-235) and Origen ( a.d.254), who first introduced an explanation of the name. Others offered different explanations (e.g. Eus. c.340); while other writers fabricated a leader, |Ebion,| after whom the sect was called (cf. Philastrius, Pseudo-Tertullian, Pseudo-Jerome, Isidore of Spain, etc.).

These explanations owe their origin to the tendency to carry back Ebionism, or the date of its founder, as far as possible. Thus the |Ebionite| was (according to his own statement) the |poor| man ('vvvn), he who voluntarily strove to practise the Master's precept (Matt. x.9) in Apostolic times (Acts iv.34-37; cf. Epiphanius, Haer. xxx. c.17); and the correctness of the etymology is not shaken by the Patristic scorn which derived the name from |poverty of intellect,| or from |low and mean opinions of Christ | (see Eus. H. E. iii.27; Origen, de Princ., and contr. Cel. ii. c.4; Ignat., Ep. ad Philadelph. c.6, longer recension). |Ebion,| first personified by Tertullian, was said to have been a pupil of Cerinthus, and the Gospel of St. John to have been directed against them both. St. Paul and St. Luke were asserted to have spoken and written against Ebionites. The |Apostolical Constitutions| (vi. c.6) traced them back to Apostolic times; Theodoret (Haer. Fab. ii. c.2) assigned them to the reign of Domitian (a.d.81-96). The existence of an |Ebion| is, however, now surrendered. Ebionism, like Gnosticism, had no special founder; but that its birthplace was the Holy Land, and its existence contemporary with the beginning of the Christian Church, is, with certain reservations, probably correct. A tendency to Ebionism existed from the first; gradually it assumed shape, and as gradually developed into the two special forms presently to be noticed.

The records of the church of Jerusalem contained in Acts prove how strong was the zeal for the Law of Moses among the Jewish converts to Christianity. After the fall of Jerusalem (a.d.70), the church was formed at Pella under Symeon, and the Jewish Christians were brought face to face with two leading facts: firstly, that the temple being destroyed, and the observance of the Law and its ordinances possible only in part, there was valid reason for doubting the necessity of retaining the rest; secondly, that if they adopted this view, they must expect to find in the Jews their most uncompromising enemies. As Christians they had expected a judgment predicted by Christ, and, following His advice, had fled from the city. Both prediction and act were resented by the Jews, as is shewn not only by the contemptuous term (Minim) they applied to the Jewish Christians (Grätz, Gesch. d. Juden. iv. p.89, etc.), but by the share they took in the death of the aged bp. Symeon (a.d.106). The breach was further widened by the refusal of the Jewish Christians to take part in the national struggles -- notably that of Bar-Cocheba (a.d.132) -- against the Romans, by the tortures they suffered for their refusal, and lastly, by the erection of Aelia Capitolina (a.d.138) on the ruins of Jerusalem. The Jews were forbidden to enter it, while the Jewish and Gentile Christians who crowded there read in Hadrian's imperial decree the abolition of the most distinctively Jewish rites, and practically signified their assent by electing as their bishop a Gentile and uncircumcised man -- Mark (Eus. H. E. iv.6). Changes hitherto working gradually now rapidly developed. Jewish Christians, with predilections for Gentile Christianity and its comparative freedom, found the way made clear to them; others, attempting to be both Jews and Christians, ended in being neither, and exposed themselves to the contempt of Rabbin as well as Christian (Grätz, p.433); others receded farther from Christianity, and approximated more and more closely to pure Judaism. The Ebionites are to be ranked among the last. By the time of Trajan (96-117) political events had given them a definite organization, and their position as a sect opposed to Gentile Christianity became fixed by the acts which culminated in the erection of Aelia Capitolina.

The Ebionites were known by other names, such as |Homuncionites| (Gk. |Anthropians| or | Anthropolatrians|) from their Christological views, |Peratici| from their settlement at Peraea, and | Symmachians| from the one able literary man among them whose name has reached us. [[174]Symmachus (2).] Acquaintance with Hebrew was then confined to a few, and his Greek version of O.T. was produced for the benefit of those who declined the LXX adopted by the orthodox Christians, or the Greek versions of Aquila and Theodotion accepted by the Jews. Many, if not most, of the improvements made by the Vulgate on the LXX are due to the Ebionite version (Field, Origenis Hexaplarum quae supersunt, Preface).

Ebionism presents itself under two principal types, an earlier and a later, the former usually designated Ebionism proper or Pharisaic Ebionism, the latter, Essene or Gnostic Ebionism. The earlier type is to be traced in the writings of Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Hippolytus, Tertullian, etc.; the latter in those of Epiphanius especially.

(a) Ebionism Proper. -- The term expresses conveniently the opinions and practices of the descendants of the Judaizers of the Apostolic age, and is very little removed from Judaism. Judaism was to them not so much a preparation for Christianity as an institution eternally good in itself, and but slightly modified in Christianity. Whatever merit Christianity had, it possessed as the continuation and supplement of Judaism. The divinity of the Old Covenant was the only valid guarantee for the truth of the New. Hence such Ebionites tended to exalt the Old at the expense of the New, to magnify Moses and the Prophets, and to allow Jesus Christ to be |nothing more than a Solomon or a Jonas| (Tertull. de Carne Christi, c.18). Legal righteousness was to them the highest type of perfection; the earthly Jerusalem, in spite of its destruction, was an object of adoration |as if it were the house of God| (Iren. adv. Haer. i. c.22 [al. c.26]); its restoration would take place in the millennial kingdom of Messiah, and the Jews would return there as the manifestly chosen people of God. The Ebionites divided the life of Jesus Christ into two parts -- one preceding, the other following, His Baptism. In common with Cerinthus and Carpocrates, they represented Him to have been |the Son of Joseph and Mary according to the ordinary course of human generation| (Iren. l.c.). They denied His birth of a Virgin, translating the original word in Isa. vii.14 not parthenos, but neanis. He was |a mere man, nothing more than a descendant of David, and not also the Son of God| (Tert. c.14). But at His Baptism a great change took place. The event is described in the |Gospel according to the Hebrews| current among them, and the description is an altered expansion of the record of St. Matthew (iii.13, 14). The Voice from heaven spake not only the words recorded by the Evangelist, but also the words, |This day have I begotten thee| (Ps. ii.7). A great light suddenly filled the place John the Baptist asked, |Who art Thou, Lord?| and the Voice answered as before. John prostrated himself at the feet of Jesus, |I pray Thee, Lord, baptize me,| but Jesus forbade him, saying, |Suffer it to be so,| etc., etc. (Epiph. Haer. xxx.13). The day of Baptism was thus the day of His |anointing by election and then becoming Christ| (cf. Justin Martyr. Dial. c. Tryph. c. xlix.), it was the turning-point in the life of Jesus: from that moment He was endued with power necessary to fill His mission as Messiah; but He was still man. The Ebionites knew nothing of either pre-existence or divinity in connexion with Him. They are said to have freed themselves from the common Jewish notion that the Messiah was to be an earthly king; they were not shocked, as were so many of the Jews, at the humbleness of the birth, the sufferings, and crucifixion of Jesus; but they agreed with them in looking upon the advent of Messiah as future, and in deferring the restitution of all things to the millennium. The Ebionites proper insisted that the Law should be strictly observed not only by themselves but by all. They quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. v.17), and pointed to His practice (cf. Matt. xxvi.55; John vii.14, etc.). It was the natural tendency of this view to diminish the value of faith in Christ and a corresponding life. Of far greater moment to them, and as necessary to salvation, was the due observance of circumcision, the sabbath, the distinction between clean and unclean food, the sacrificial offerings -- probably with the later Pharisaic additions (cf. Eus. H.E. vi.17) -- and the refusal of fellowship or hospitality to the Gentiles (cf. Justin, c. xlvii.). They even quoted the words of Jesus (Matt. x.24, 25) as their warrant, and affirmed their motto to be: |We also would be imitators of Christ| (Origen, quoted by Schliemann). Jesus, they asserted, |was justified by fulfilling the Law. He was the Christ of God, since not one of the rest of mankind had observed the Law completely. Had any one else fulfilled the commandments of the Law, he would have been the Christ.| Hence |when Ebionites thus fulfil the law, they are able to become Christs| (Hippolytus, Refut. Omn. Haer. vii.34).

As might be expected, the Apostle Paul was especially hateful to them. They repudiated his official character, they reviled him personally. In language which recalls that of the Judaizers alluded to in Corinthians and Galatians, they represented him as a teacher directly opposed to SS. Peter, James, and John; they repudiated his Apostolical authority because (as they affirmed) he had not been |called of Jesus Christ Himself,| nor trained in the Church of Jerusalem. They twisted into a defamatory application to himself his employment of the term |deceiver| (II. Cor. vi.8); he was himself one of the |many which corrupted the word of God| (ii.17); he proclaimed |deliverance from the Law| only |to please men| (Gal. i.10) and |commend himself| (II. Cor. iii.1). His personal character was held up to reproach as that of one who |walked according to the flesh| (x.2), puffed up with pride, marked by levity of purpose (iii.1) and even by dishonesty (vii.2). They rejected his epistles, not on the ground of authenticity, but as the work of an |apostate from the Law | (Eus. iii. c.27; Iren. l.c.). They even asserted that by birth he was not a Jew, but a Gentile (wresting his words in Acts xxi.39 who had become a proselyte in the hope of marrying the High Priest's daughter, but that having failed in this he had severed himself from the Jews and occupied himself in writing against circumcision and the observance of the sabbath (Epiph. adv. Haer. I. xxx.16, 25).

In common with the Nazarenes and the Gnostic-Ebionites, the Pharisaic Ebionites used a recension of the Gospel of St. Matthew, which they termed the |gospel according to the Hebrews.| It was a Chaldee version written in Hebrew letters, afterwards translated into Greek and Latin by Jerome, who declared it identical with the |gospel of the Twelve Apostles| and the |gospel of the Nazarenes| (see Herzog,
Real-Encyklopädie, |Apokryphen d. N. Test.| p.520, ed.1877). In the Ebionite |gospel| the section corresponding to the first two chapters of St. Matt. was omitted, the supernatural character of the narrative being contradictory to their views about the person of Jesus Christ. It is difficult to say with certainty what other books of the N.T. were known to them; but there is reason to believe that they (as also the
Gnostic-Ebionites) were familiar with the Gospels of St. Mark and St. Luke. The existence among them of the |Protevangelium Jacobi| and the Periodoi tou Petrou indicates their respect for those Apostles.

(b) Essene or Gnostic Ebionism. -- This, as the name indicates, was a type of Ebionism affected by external influences. The characteristic features of the ascetic Essenes were reproduced in its practices, and the traces of influences more directly mystical and oriental were evident in its doctrines. The different phases through which Ebionism passed at different times render it, however, difficult to distinguish clearly in every case between Gnostic and Pharisaic Ebionism. Epiphanius (adv. Haer. xxx.) is the chief authority on the Gnostic Ebionites. He met them in Cyprus, and personally obtained information about them (cf. R. A. Lipsius, Zur Quellen-Kritik d. Epiphanios, pp.138, 143, 150 etc.).

Their principal tenets were as follows: Christianity they identified with primitive religion or genuine Mosaism, as distinguished from what they termed accretions to Mosaism, or the post-Mosaic developments described in the later books of O.T. To carry out this distinction they fabricated two classes of |prophets,| prophetai aletheias, and prophetai suneseos ouk aletheias. In the former class they placed Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Aaron, Moses, and Jesus; in the latter David, Solomon, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. In the same spirit they accepted the Pentateuch alone among the O.T. writings, and emasculated it; rejecting whatever reflected questionably upon their favourites. They held that there were two antagonistic powers appointed by God -- Christ and devil; to the former was allotted the world to come, to the latter the present world. The conception of Christ was variously entertained. Some affirmed that He was created (not born) of the Father, a Spirit, and higher than the angels; that He had the power of coming to this earth when He would, and in various modes of manifestation; that He had been incarnate in Adam, and had appeared to the patriarchs in bodily shape; others identified Adam and Christ. In these last days He had come in the person of Jesus. Jesus was therefore to them a successor of Moses, and not of higher authority. They quoted from their gospel a saying attributed to Him, |I am He concerning Whom Moses prophesied, saying, A prophet shall the Lord God raise unto you like unto me,| etc. (Clem. Hom. iii. c.53), and this was enough to identify His teaching with that of genuine Mosaism. But by declining to fix the precise moment of the union of the Christ with the man Jesus -- a union assigned by Pharisaic Ebionites to the hour of Baptism -- they admitted His miraculous origin.

In pursuance of their conception that the devil was the |prince of this world| they were strict ascetics. They abjured flesh-meat, repudiating passages (e.g. Gen. xviii.8) which contradicted their view; they refused to taste wine, and communicated with unleavened bread and water. Water was to them |in the place of a god|; ablutions and lustrations were imperative and frequent. But they held the married life in honour, and recommended early marriages. To the observance of the Jewish sabbath they added that of the Christian Lord's day. Circumcision was sacred to them from the practice of the patriarchs and of Jesus Christ; and they declined all fellowship with the uncircumcised, but repudiated the sacrifices of the altar and the reverence of the Jew for the Temple. In common with the Ebionites proper, they detested St. Paul, rejected his epistles, and circulated stories discreditable to him. The other Apostles were known to them by their writings, which they regarded as inferior to their own gospel.

The conjecture appears not improbable that as the siege of Jerusalem under Titus gave an impetus to Ebionism proper, so the ruin under Hadrian developed Gnostic Ebionism. Not that Gnosticism began then to affect it for the first time, but that Gnostic ideas hitherto held in solution were precipitated and found a congenial home among men who through contact with oriental systems in Syria were already predisposed to accept them (cf. Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies, lect. viii.). This is further evident from the book of Elchasai and the Clementine literature. These works are the production of the Essene Ebionites; and where they speak of Jesus Christ and His Apostles, His sayings and their lives, they do so, not in the words of the canonical Gospels and Epistles, but with additions or omissions, and a colouring which transforms (e.g.) St. Peter, St. Matthew, and St. James the Just into Essenes, and yet with that Gnostic tendency of thought which makes them lineal descendants of the Judaizers who imperilled the church at Colossae. (See Lightfoot, Colossians, p.73, etc., and Essenism and Christianity, p.397, etc.)

The Essene or Gnostic-Ebionites differed from the Pharisaic Ebionites in another respect. By missionary zeal, as well as by literary activity, they sought to obtain converts to their views. In the earlier part of the 3rd cent. the Ebionite Alcibiades of Apamea (Syria) repaired to Rome. He brought with him the book of Elchasai, and |preached unto men a new remission of sins (proclaimed) in the third year of Trajan's reign| (a.d.101). Hippolytus, who gives an account of the matter (Haer. ix. c. viii. etc., ed. Clark), exposed the decided antinomianism which penetrated the teaching of the mythical teacher and of the pupil, but it is evident that many |became victims of the delusion.| The immorality which the book -- in imitation of the teaching of Callistus -- indirectly encouraged probably attracted some, but would discredit the dogmatic views of the missionary.

Ebionite Christianity did not, however, last very long, neither did it exercise much influence west of Syria while it lasted. In Palestine the discomfiture accorded to |a certain one| (probably Alcibiades) who came to Caesarea c. a.d.247 maintaining the |ungodly and wicked error of the Elkesaites| (Eus. vi.38; cf. Redepenning, Origines, ii. p.72) was in keeping with the reception accorded to less extreme Ebionite views from the time of the reconstitution of the mother-church at Aelia Capitolina. Judaism of every kind gradually passed out of favour. The attitude of the bishops of Palestine in the Paschal controversy of the 2nd cent. was that of men who wished to stand clear of any sympathy with Jewish customs; the language of Justin Martyr and of Hegesippus was the language of the representatives of the Samaritan and the Hebrew Christianity of the day, not of the Ebionite. Outside of Palestine Ebionism had even less chance of survival. From the very first, the instructions and memories of St. Paul and St. John excluded it from Asia Minor; in Antioch the names of Ignatius, Theophilus, and Serapion were vouchers for Catholic doctrine and practice; and the daughter-churches of Gaul and Alexandria naturally preferred doctrine supplied to them by teachers trained in the school of these Apostles. Even in the church of Rome, whatever tendency existed in Apostolic times towards Ebionism, the separation -- also in Apostolic times -- of the Judaizers was the beginning of the end which no after-amalgamation under Clement could retard. The tone of the Shepherd of Hermas -- a work which emanated from the Roman church during the first half of the 2nd cent. (see Lightfoot, Galatians, p.99, n.3) -- however different from the tone of Clement and St. Paul, is not Ebionite, as a comparison with another so-called Roman and certainly later Ebionite work -- the Clementine writings -- shews. The end of Ebionism had actually come in the Roman church when in the 2nd cent. Jewish practices -- notably as regards the observance of Easter -- were unhesitatingly rejected. The creed of the Christian in Rome was the creed which he held from Irenaeus in Gaul and Polycarp in Asia Minor, and not from the Ebionite. When the above-named Alcibiades appeared in Rome (a.d.219), Hippolytus denounced his teaching (that of Elchasai) as that of |a wolf risen up against many wandering sheep, whom Callistus had scattered abroad|: it came upon him as a novelty; it had |risen up,| he says, |in our own day| (Haer. ix. cc.8, 12). This language is a proof of the oblivion which had certainly befallen any previous propagation of Ebionism in Rome.

For 200 years more Ebionism -- especially of the Essene form -- lingered on. A few Ebionites were left in the time of Theodoret, about the middle of 5th cent.; the rest had returned to strict Judaism and the utter rejection of Christianity, or to a purer Christianity than that which Ebionism favoured.

The Patristic notices on the Ebionites will be found in the works referred to (cf. on their value, R. A. Lipsius, Die Quellen d. ältesten Ketzergeschichte, 1875). The literature on the subject is further collected by (int. al.) Schliemann, Die Clementinen (1844); Ritschl, Die Entstehung d. alt-katholischen Kirche (1857); Lightfoot, Galatians, Dissertation III. St. Paul and the Three (1876).

[J.M.F.]

Edesius
Edesius (3) shared the romantic fortunes of his brother Frumentius, the first bp. of Auxumis (Axum), in the 4th cent. The biographical details at our disposal consist of a lengthy narrative, introduced, on the authority of Edesius, by Rufinus into his Ecclesiastical History (lib. i.9). This narrative has been copied, with slight deviations, by Socrates (H. E. i.19), Sozomen (ii.24), and Theodoret (i.23, 24). Cf. also Baronius (Ann.327, viii. ix. x.). Frumentius and Edesius, the young relatives of Meropius, a Syrian philosopher (merchant), accompanied him on a voyage of adventure to India. On their return to Phoenicia by way of the Red Sea, they landed |at a certain port,| where there was |a safe haven,| and there suffered from the barbarous assault of the |Indians,| who murdered all the ship's company except the two youths, who were conveyed as prizes to the king. He appointed Frumentius and Edesius as his treasurer and cup-bearer respectively. By their means Christianity was introduced among |the Indians.| Their names in Ethiopian documents given by Ludolf (Hist. Eth. iii.2) are Fremonatos and Sydvacus (cf. Gesenius, Aethiop. Kirche in Ersch and Gruber, and Hoffmann in Herzog's Encyc.). The word |India| is used with the same indefiniteness as are Ethiopia and Libya elsewhere. From the times of Aristotle to those of Eratosthenes and of Hipparchus, India and Africa were believed to unite at some unknown point S. of the Indian Ocean (Dict. Anc. Geogr. vol. ii. p.45, art. |India|; Pliny, vi.22-24). These |Indians| were Abyssinians, as we see from the subsequent career of Frumentius. The king, according to Ludolf's Ethiopian Codex, was called Abreha, and on drawing near his end, offered their liberty to the two youths. The queen-mother earnestly besought them to remain, to undertake the education of the young prince Erazanes, and to assist her in the regency during his minority. They consented, and lost no opportunity of diffusing a knowledge of Christ. They sought out Christian merchants trading in the country, gathered Christian disciples, and built houses of prayer, |that worship might be offered, and the Roman ecclesiastical routine observed| (Soz. l.c.). They were not in orders, and Frumentius went to Alexandria and asked for a bishop to be sent to Abyssinia. Athanasius consecrated Frumentius himself. Edesius remained at Tyre and became a presbyter of the church there, where Rufinus met him.

[H.R.R.]

Elagabalus, emperor
Elagabalus. The short reign of this feeble and profligate emperor, though not coming into direct contact with the history of the Christian church, is not without interest as a phase of the religious condition of the empire.

Varius Avitus Bassianus, as he was named at his birth, was of Phoenician descent, and born at Emesa, in Syria, c. a.d.205. His mother, Julia Soëmia, and aunt, Julia Mammaea, were devoted to the worship of El-gabal (=God the Creator, or, according to less probable etymology, God of the Mountains), and he and his cousin Alexander Severus were in early childhood consecrated as priests of that deity, and the young Bassianus took the name of the god to whom he ministered.

Julia Mammaea had eclectic tendencies, and by her invitation the great Origen came to Antioch (probably, however, after the death of Elagabalus), and was received with many marks of honour. Eusebius, who relates the fact (H. E. vi.21), speaks of her as a woman of exceptional piety (gune theosebestate ei kai tis alle gegonuia), and we may trace her influence in the character of her son Alexander Severus. [[175]Severus (2).] After spending some time at Nicomedia, where he entered on his second consulship, Elagabalus proceeded in a.d.219 (the year in which Callistus succeeded Zephyrinus as bp. of Rome) to the capital. His short reign there was a frenzy of idolatrous impurity. His jealousy and suspicion led him to imprison Alexander Severus, whose virtue attracted the admiration both of soldiers and people, and whom, at his mother's advice, he had adopted and proclaimed as Caesar soon after arriving in Rome. The troops rose and rescued their favourite. The two sisters, each with her son, appeared at the head of their supporters, and the followers of Severus were victorious. Soëmia and the boy-emperor were thrown into the Tiber (hence the epithet Tiberinus afterwards attached to him in derision), and the senate branded his name with eternal infamy. Dio. Cass. lxxvii.30-41, lxxix.; Herodian, v.4-23; Lamprid. Elagab.; Capitolin. Macrinus; Eutrop. viii.13; Aurel. Victor, de Caes. xxiii., Epit. xxiii.)

[E.H.P.]

Elesbaan, king, hermit, and saint of Ethiopia
Elesbaan, a king, hermit, and saint of Ethiopia during the 6th cent. (Rome, Oct.27; Ethiopia, Ginbot, xx. May 15; cf. Ludolphus, p.415), whose exact story is difficult to trace. (Cf. Ludolphus, History of Ethiopia, ed.1684, p.167; Lebeau, Histoire du Bas Empire, ed.1827 viii.47, note 4; Walch, in Novi Commentarii Soc. Reg. Göttingen. t. iv.; Historia Rerum in Homeritide Saec. vi. Gestarum, p.4.) The importance of the crusades on which his fame rests is attested by Gibbon, who asserts that, had their purpose been attained, |Mahomet must have been crushed in his cradle, and Abyssinia would have prevented a revolution which has changed the civil and religious state of the world| (Decline and Fall, c. xlii. sub fin.). The details of the saint's wars and character are drawn from the Acta S. Arethae, extant in two forms: the earlier and more authentic, found by Lequien in the Colbert Library (Oriens Christianus, ii.428), is referred by the Jesuit author of the Acta Sanctorum to the 7th cent. at latest; the later is, at best, but the recension of Simeon Metaphrastes, in the 10th cent.

It was probably during the later years of Anastasius's reign that Elesbaan succeeded his father Tazena on the throne of Ethiopia. His kingdom was greatly dependent for its welfare upon the goodwill and good order of the people of Yemen, the Homeritae, from whom it was separated by the narrow strait of Bab-el-Mandeb: for through the territory of the Homeritae the merchants of Syria and of Rome came to the great port of Adulis (cf. Assemani Bibl. Orientalis, i. p.360), near whose ruins in Annesley Bay the Arabian traders still unlade their ships (cf. Henry Salt, A Voyage to Abyssinia, c. ix. p.451). When Elesbaan succeeded, the Homeritae had greatly obscured the Christianity which they had received in the reign of Constantius, but the language of Cosmas Indicopleustes (Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. lxxxviii. p.170) shews that it was not wholly extinct. The name of their king is variously written Dunaan and Dhu Nowas; by John of Asia as Dimion; by Theophanes as Damian. He had been made king c.490, by the people whom he had freed from their gross tyrant Laknia Dhu Sjenatir; and having shortly after his accession forsworn idolatry and embraced Judaism, determined to enforce his new creed with the sword (cf. Acta Sanctorum, Oct. vol. x, p.693). In retaliation for the sufferings of the Jews throughout the Christian empire, he exacted heavy tolls from all Christian merchants who came through his territory to the port of Aden and the Straits of Bab-el-Mandeb, and, according to John of Asia (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Orientalis, i.360), put many Christians to death. Such action was injurious to the commerce of all the neighbouring peoples, but especially of Ethiopia; and Elesbaan soon after his accession sent a useless remonstrance, and then prepared for war. About a.d.519 he crossed the straits, utterly defeated the Arabian forces, and driving the Jew to refuge in the hills, left a viceroy to bear Christian rule over the Homeritae and returned to Ethiopia (ib. p.362). The time of this expedition is incidentally and approximately marked by Cosmas Indicopleustes, who tells us that he was at Adulis |en te arche tes basileias Ioustinou tou Rhomaion basileos| (a.d.518-527), when the king of the people of Axum, being about to war against the Homeritae, sent to ask the governor of Adulis for a copy of a certain inscription; which copy Cosmas and another monk were charged to make (Migne, Patr. Gk. vol. lxxxviii. p.102).

The death of the viceroy, probably in a.d.522 or 523, whom Elesbaan had left in Yemen, encouraged Dhu Nowas to come down from his hiding-place in the hills (|tanquam daemon carne indutus,| Acta Sanctorum, Oct. xii.316), and reassert himself as king of the Homeritae and champion of Judaism. Choosing a season when the Arabian Gulf would be an impassable barrier to the intervention of Elesbaan, he gathered a force which presently numbered 120,000 men and, having put to death all Christians whom he could find and turned their church into a synagogue, pressed on to Negran, the head-quarters of the Ethiopian vice-royalty, then held by Arethas the phylarch. He found the garrison forewarned and the gates closed; nor were they opened at his threats, when coming to the wall and holding up a wooden cross he swore that all who would not blaspheme the Crucified and insult the sign of His suffering should die. At last by treachery Dhu Nowas won an entrance, promising to hurt none of the citizens and only demanding an exorbitant tribute; but having entered, he began at once the reckless massacre which has left its mark even in the Koran (cf. Walch's paper in the Göttingen Commentarii, p.25). Arethas and Ruma his wife died with a defiant confession on their lips; more than 4,000 Christian men, women, and children were killed (commemorated in the Roman calendar on Oct.24) ; and from the fiery dyke into which the victims were thrown, Dhu Nowas received the name Saheb-el-Okhdud (|Lord of the Trench|). At this time, probably in Jan.524, Simeon, bp. of Beth-Arsam, had been sent by the emperor Justin, together with Abraham, a priest of
Constantinople, to gain the alliance of Mundhir III., king of the Arabians of Hira, a friend valuable alike for reasons of commerce and in regard to the war with Persia. As the ambassadors drew near the king (the story is told by Simeon in a letter to the abbat of Gabula), they were met by a crowd of Arabs crying that Christ was driven out of Rome and Persia and Homeritis; and they learnt that messengers were present from Dhu Nowas with letters to king Mundhir, in which they heard the long recital of the treachery by which Negran had been taken, of the insult to the bishop's tomb, of the slaughter of the Christians and the triumph of Judaism, the confession of the martyr Arethas, and the speech of Ruma urging the women of Negran to follow her to the abiding city of the divine Bridegroom, praying that the blood of the martyrs might be the wall of Negran while it continued in the faith, and that she might be forgiven for that Arethas had died first. They heard of her brutal murder, and the appeal of Dhu Nowas that Mundhir should at once enact a like massacre throughout his kingdom. Their own end must have seemed very near; but the courage of a soldier who stood forth as spokesman of the many Christians in Mundhir's army decided the hesitation of the king, and the ambassadors went away unhurt (but apparently unanswered) to Naaman, a port in the Arabian Gulf. There they heard more fully the story of the massacre, and especially of the constancy of a boy, who was afterwards known to the bp. of Asia at Justinian's court. Simeon of Beth-Arsam thus closes his letter, praying that the news may be spread throughout the church and the martyrs receive the honour of commemoration, and that the king of Ethiopia may be urged to help the Homeritae against the oppression of the Jew (cf. Assemani, Bibl. Or. i.364-379). When this message reached Elesbaan, it was reinforced by a letter from Justin, elicited by the entreaties of Dous Ibn Dzi Thaleban, one of the few Christians who had escaped Dhu Nowas (cf. Wright, Early Christianity in Arabia, p.56). This letter is given in the Acta S. Arethae; where also it is told how the patriarch of Alexandria, at the request of Justin, urged Elesbaan to invade Yemen, offering up a litany and appointing a vigil on his behalf, and sending to him the Eucharist in a silver vessel. Without delay Elesbaan collected a great army, which he divided into two parts; 15,000 men he sent southwards to cross at Bab-el-Mandeb and, marching through Yemen, divert the strength of Dhu Nowas's forces from the main body of the Ethiopians, which Elesbaan intended to send by sea to some place on the S. coast of Arabia. For the transport of these latter he appropriated 60 merchant vessels then anchored in his ports, adding ten more, built after the native fashion, the planks being held together by ropes. On the eve of the enterprise he went in procession to the great church of Axum, and there, laying aside his royalty, sued in formâ pauperis for the favour of Him Whose war he dared to wage; praying that his sins might be visited on himself, and not on his people. Then he sought the blessing, counsel, and prayers of St. Pantaleon; and received from within the doorless and windowless tower, where the hermit had lived for 45 years, the answer: |Esto sun soi ho sumbasileuon soi.| Thus the army was sent on its twofold route.

For the 15,000 Bab-el-Mandeb was indeed a gate of tears: they died of hunger, wandering in the desert. The main body was safely embarked, and sailed S. down the Gulf of Arabia towards the straits; which Dhu Nowas had barred by a huge chain, stretched across the space of two furlongs from side to side. Over this, however, first ten ships and then seven more, including that of the Ethiopian admiral, were lifted by the waves; the rest were driven back by stress of weather, but presently, the chain being, according to one account, broken, forced the passage, and passing the other seventeen, cast anchor farther along the coast. Meanwhile Dhu Nowas, having first encamped on the W. shore, where he thought his chain would force the Ethiopians to land, hurried from his position, and leaving but a few men to resist the smaller fleet, watched with his main army the movements of the rest. Those on the 17 ships under the Ethiopian admiral easily effected a landing near Aden, and defeating the troops opposed to them, pressed on to the chief city, Taphar, or Taphran, which surrendered immediately (cf. Wright, op. cit.58-60). Discouraged by this disaster, the main body of the Arabians offered a feeble resistance; and Dhu Nowas saw that his downfall was very near. According to the Arabian historians, he threw himself from the cliff and died in the waves; according to the Acta S. Arethae, he bound his seven kinsmen in chains, and fastened them to his throne, lest they should fail to share his fate; and so awaited death at Elesbaan's own hand. The Arabic writers are unsupported in their story of the useless resistance of a successor Dhu Giadan; it was probably at the death of Dhu Nowas that the kingdom of the Homeritae ended, and Yemen became a province of Ethiopia. At Taphar Elesbaan is said to have built a church, digging the foundations for seven days with his own hands; and from Taphar he wrote of his victory to the patriarch of Alexandria. A bishop was sent from Alexandria and appointed to the see of Negran, but there are doubts as to both the orthodoxy and identity of this bishop. The king restored Negran, entrusting it to Arethas's son, rebuilding and endowing the great church, and granting perpetual right of asylum to the place where the bodies of the martyrs had lain, and then returned to Ethiopia (Boll. Acta SS. Oct. xii.322), leaving a Christian Arab named Esimiphaeus or Ariathus, to be his viceroy over the conquered people. A part of Elesbaan's army, however, refused to leave the luxury of Arabia Felix, and not long after set up as rival to Esimiphaeus one Abrahah or Abraham, the Christian slave of a Roman merchant, who was strong enough to shut up the viceroy in a fort and seize the throne of Yemen. A force of 3,000 men was sent by Elesbaan, under a prince of his house, whom some call Aryates or Arethas, to depose the usurper; and it seems that Abrahah, like Dhu Nowas, sought safety among the mountains. But he soon (c.540) came down and confronted the representative of Elesbaan; and at the critical moment the Ethiopian troops deserted and murdered their general. To maintain his supremacy and avenge his kinsman, Elesbaan sent a second army; but this, loyally fighting with Abrahah, was utterly defeated, and only a handful of men returned to Ethiopia. The Arabic historians record that Elesbaan swore to yet lay hold of the land of the Homeritae, both mountain and plain, pluck the forelock from the rebel's head, and take his blood as the price of Aryates's death; and they tell of the mixed cunning and cowardice by which Abrahah satisfied the Ethiopian's oath, and evaded his anger, winning at last a recognition of his dignity. Procopius adds that Abrahah paid tribute to Elesbaan's successor; and the Homeritae remained in free subjection to Ethiopia almost to the end of the century.

Records are extant, almost in the very words of the ambassadors, of two embassies from Justinian to Elesbaan. Joannes Malala, in writing of the first, had the autograph of the envoy whom Procopius (de Bello Persico, i.20) calls Julian; Photius has preserved, in the third codex of his Bibliotheca, Nonnosus's story of his experience in the second mission. Julian must have been sent before 531, for Cabades was still living, and, according to Procopius, Esimiphaeus was viceroy of Homeritis. He was received by Elesbaan, according to his own account, with the silence of an intense joy; for the alliance of Rome had long been the great desire of the Ethiopians. The king was seated on a high chariot, drawn by four elephants caparisoned with gold; he wore a loose robe studded with pearls, and round his loins a covering of linen embroidered with gold. He received Justinian's letter with every sign of respect, and began to prepare his forces to take part in the Persian war even before Julian was dismissed from his court with the kiss of peace (Johannis Malalae, Chronographia, xviii. Bonn. ed. pp.457, 458). Malala records no sequel of these preparations; Procopius complains that none occurred.

The second embassy was sent primarily to Kaisus or Imrulcays, the prince of the Chindini and Maaddeni, and only secondarily to the Homeritae and Ethiopians, probably in the last years of Elesbaan's reign. Nonnosus the envoy belonged to a family of diplomatists. But Photius does not state the purpose or result of this journey; only telling of the great herd of 5,000 elephants which Nonnosus saw between Adulis and Axum, and the pigmy negroes who met him on an island as he sailed away from Pharsan (Photii, Bibliotheca, Bekker's ed. pp.2, 3).

The story of Elesbaan's abdication and seclusion is told in the Acta S. Arethae. Having accepted the fealty and recognized the royalty of Abrahah, and having confirmed the faith of Christ in Homeritis, he laid aside his crown and assumed the garb of a solitary. His cell is still shewn to the traveller; it was visited in 1805 by Henry Salt, and has been elaborately described by Mendez and Lefevre. There the king remained in solitude and great asceticism; and the year of his death is unknown. His crown he sent to Jerusalem, praying that it might be hung |in conspectu januae vivifici sepulchri.|

[F.P.]

Eleusius, bp. of Cyzicus
Eleusius (2), bp. of Cyzicus, a prominent semi-Arian in the 2nd half of the 4th cent., intimately connected with Basil of Ancyra, Eustathius of Sebaste, Sophronius of Pompeiopolis, and other leaders of the Macedonian party. He is uniformly described as of high personal character, holy in life, rigid in self-discipline, untiring in his exertions for what he deemed truth, and, according to St. Hilary, more nearly orthodox than most of his associates (Hilar. de Synod. p.133). The people of his diocese are described by Theodoret as zealous for the orthodox faith, and well instructed in the Holy Scriptures and in church doctrines, and he himself as a man worthy of all praise (Theod. H. E. ii.25; Haer. Fab. iv.3). Though usually found acting with the tyrannical and unscrupulous party, of which Macedonius was the original leader, and sharing in the discredit of their measures against the holders of the Homoousian faith, Eleusius was uncompromising in opposing the pronounced Arians, by whom he was persecuted and deposed. He held office in the Imperial household when suddenly elevated to the see of Cyzicus by Macedonius, bp. of Constantinople, c.356 (Soz. H. E. iv.20; Suidas, s.v. Eleusios). He signalized his entrance on his office by a vehement outburst of zeal against the relics of paganism at Cyzicus. He shewed no less decision in dealing with the Novatianists, with whom a community of persecution had caused the Catholics to unite. He destroyed their church, and forbade their assemblies for worship (Socr. H. E. ii.38; Soz. H. E. iv.21; v.15). He soon acquired great influence over his people by his religious zeal and the gravity of his manners. He established in his diocese a large number of monasteries, both for males and females (Suidas, u.s.). He took part in the semi-Arian council at Ancyra a.d.358 (Hilar. de Synod. p.127), and was one of the members deputed to lay before Constantius at Sirmium the decrees they had passed, condemnatory of the Anomoeans (Hilar. u.s.; Soz. H. E. iv.13; Labbe, Concil. ii.790). At the council of Seleucia, a.d.359, he replied to the proposition of the Acacians to draw up a new confession of faith, by asserting that they had not met to receive a new faith, but to pledge themselves for death to that of the fathers (Socr. H. E. ii.39, 40). Being commissioned with Eustathius of Sebaste, Basil of Ancyra, and others, to communicate the result of the synod to Constantius, Eleusius denounced the blasphemies attributed to Eudoxius so vigorously that the latter was compelled by the emperor's threats to retract (Theod. H. E. ii.23). [[176]Eudoxius; Eustathius of Sebaste.] The wily Acacians, however, speedily gained the ear of Constantius, and secured the deposition of their semi-Arian rivals, including Eleusius, a.d.360. The nominal charge against him was that he had baptized and ordained one Heraclius of Tyre, who, being accused of magic, had fled to Cyzicus, and whom, when the facts came to his knowledge, he had refused to depose. He was also charged with having admitted to holy orders persons condemned by his neighbour, Maris of Chalcedon (Soz. H. E. iv.24; Socr. H. E. ii.42). His old patron, Macedonius of Constantinople, who had been got rid of at the same time, wrote to encourage him and the other deposed prelates in their adherence to the Antiochene formula and to the |Homoiousian| as the watchword of their party (Socr. H. E. ii.45; Soz. H. E. iv.27). The subtle Anomoean Eunomius was intruded into the see of Cyzicus by Eudoxius, who had succeeded Macedonius (Socr. H. E. iv.7; Philost. H. E. v.3). Eunomius failed to secure the goodwill of the people who refused to attend where he officiated, and built a church for themselves outside the town. On the accession of Julian, a.d.361, Eleusius, with the other deposed prelates, returned to his see, but was soon expelled a second time by Julian, on the representation of the heathen inhabitants of Cyzicus, for his zeal against paganism (Soz. H. E. v.15). At Julian's death Eleusius regained possession. He took the lead at the Macedonian council of Lampsacus, a.d.365 (Socr. H. E. iv.4). At Nicomedia, a.d.366, he weakly succumbed to Valens's threats of banishment and confiscation, and accepted the Arian creed. Full of remorse, he assembled his people on his return to Cyzicus, confessed and deplored his crime, and desired, since he had denied his faith, to resign his charge to a worthier. The people, devotedly attached to him, refused to accept his resignation (ib.6; Philost. H. E. ix.13). In 381 Eleusius was the chief of 36 bishops of Macedonian tenets summoned by Theodosius to the oecumenical council of Constantinople in the hope of bringing them back to Catholic doctrine. This anticipation proved nugatory; Eleusius and his adherents obstinately refused all reconciliation, maintaining their heretical views on the Divinity of the Holy Ghost (Socr. H. E. v.8; Soz. H. E. vii.7). Similarly at the conference of bishops of all parties in 383, to which Eleusius was also invited as chief of the Macedonians, the differences proved irreconcilable, and the emperor manifested his disappointment by severe edicts directed against the Macedonians, Eunomians, Arians, and other heretics (Tillem. Mém. Eccl. vol. vi. passim).

[E.V.]

Eleutherus, bp. of Rome
Eleutherus (1), bp. of Rome in the reigns of Marcus Aurelius and Commodus, during 15 years, 6 months, and 5 days, according to the Liberian catalogue. Eusebius (H. E. v. prooem.) places his accession in the 17th year of Antoninus Verus (i.e. Marcus Aurelius), viz. a.d.177; which would make 192 the date of his death. But the consuls given in the Liberian catalogue as contemporary with his election and death are those of 171 and 185.

Hegesippus, quoted by Eusebius (H. E. iv.22), states that when he himself arrived in Rome, Eleutherus was deacon of Anicetus, who was then bishop, and became bishop on the death of Soter, the successor of Anicetus (cf. Iren. adv. Haeres. iii.3, and Jerome, de Vir. Illustr. c.22).

Eleutherus was contemporary with the Aurelian persecution; and after the death of Aurelius the Christians had peace, in consequence, it is said, of the favour of Marcia, the concubine of Commodus; the only recorded exception in Rome being the martyrdom of Apollonius in the reign of Commodus (Eus. H. E. v.21; Jerome, Catal. c.42). The chief sufferers under Aurelius were the churches of Asia Minor and those of Lyons and Vienne in Southern Gaul, a.d.177. In letters to Eleutherus by the hand of Irenaeus the latter churches made known, |for the sake of the peace of the churches| (H. E. v.3), their own judgment, with that of their martyrs while in prison, respecting the claims of Montanus to inspiration.

The fact of the bp. of Rome having been especially addressed on this occasion has been adduced as an acknowledgment in that early age of his supreme authority. But the letters of the martyrs to Eleutherus do not appear, from Eusebius, to have had any different purport from those sent also to the churches of Asia and Phrygia, nor does their object seem to have been to seek a judgment, but rather to express one, in virtue, we may suppose, of the weight carried in those days by the utterances of martyrs. Their having addressed Eleutherus, as well as the churches where Montanus himself was teaching, is sufficiently accounted for by the prominence of the Roman bishop's position in the West, about which there is no dispute. Of the course taken by Eleutherus with respect to Montanus nothing can be alleged with certainty.

Besides the heresy of Montanus, those of Basilides, Valentinus, Cerdo, and Marcion were then at their height, and gained many adherents in Rome. Valentinus and Cerdo had come there between 138 and 142; Marcion a little later. There is, however, some difficulty in placing the sojourn in Rome of these heresiarchs in the episcopate of Eleutherus; Valentinus, according to other accounts, having died previously (see Tillem. On Eleutherus). Florinus and Blastus also, two degraded presbyters of Rome, broached during the episcopate of Eleutherus certain heresies, of which nothing is known except what may be gathered from the titles of certain lost treatises written against them by Irenaeus (Eus. H. E. v.14, 15, 20, Pacian, Ep. i.). The visit of Irenaeus to Eleutherus gave the latter opportunity to become acquainted with the prevalent heresies, against which he became the most distinguished champion.

Especially interesting to Englishmen is the story connecting Eleutherus with the origin of British Christianity (Bede, H. E. c. iv.). [[178]Lucius (16)]. This account, written some 500 years after the event, is the earliest mention of it in any historian. It seems pretty certain that it was from a Roman catalogue that Bede got his information, Gildas, his usual authority, being silent on the subject. In the hands of chroniclers after Bede the story receives several and growing additions. The story is first found in its simplest form in the Pontifical annals at Rome, in the 6th cent.; is introduced into Britain by Bede in the 8th; grows into the conversion of the whole of Britain in the 9th; and appears full-fledged, enriched with details, and connected with both Llandaff and Glastonbury, in the 12th. There is, however, nothing improbable in the original story itself, and it is more likely to have had some fact than pure invention for its origin, and the Welsh traditions about Lleirwg, though unnoticed by Gildas, may have been ancient and genuine ones, independent of Bede's account. Lingard takes this view, laying stress on the dedication of churches in the diocese of Llandaff to Lleirwg and the saints associated with him, and supposing him to have been an independent British prince outside the Roman pale. In confirmation of the story is alleged further the fact that, shortly after the time of Eleutherus writers first begin to speak of British Christianity. For Tertullian, Origen, and Arnobius are the first to allude to the triumphs of the Gospel, though partial, in this remote island. What they say, however, is quite consistent with the earlier, and other than Roman, origin of the British church; and it may be that it was the very fact of their having borne this testimony that suggested Eleutherus, a pope shortly anterior to their date, as one to whom the mission might be assigned.

[J.B -- Y.]

Elias I., bp. of Jerusalem
Elias (1) I., bp. of Jerusalem, A.D.494-513; an Arab by birth who was educated with Martyrius, in one of the Nitrian monasteries. Driven from Egypt by Timothy Aelurus, the two friends took refuge, a.d.457, in the laura of St. Euthymius, who received them with great favour, and predicted that they would both be bishops of Jerusalem. After a time they quitted the laura, and Elias constructed a cell at Jericho. In 478 Martyrius succeeded Anastasius as bp. of Jerusalem, and was followed by Sallustius in 486, and in 494 by Elias. Moschus records that Elias practised total abstinence from wine both as monk and bishop (Prat. Spiritual. c.25). His residence became the nucleus of a collection of cells of ascetics, which developed into a monastery adjacent to the church of the Anastasis (Cyril. Scythop. Vit. S. Sabae, c.31). When Elias succeeded to the patriarchate, the Christian world exhibited a melancholy spectacle of discord. There were at least four great parties anathematizing one another. When the Monophysites (Acephali) in Syria, under the leadership of Xenaias of Hierapolis, broke into open insurrection, treating as heretics all who acknowledged the two natures, Elias was one of the chief objects of their attack. In 509 they demanded a confession of his faith, and Anastasius required him to convene a council to repudiate the decrees of Chalcedon. Elias declined, but drew up a letter to the emperor, containing a statement of his belief, accompanied by anathemas of Nestorius, Eutyches, Diodorus, and Theodore of Mopsuestia. This was entrusted to members of the Acephali to convey to Constantinople. When opened, it was found to contain an anathema against the two natures. Elias reproached the bearers with having falsified the document and thus laid him open to the charge, which he found it very hard to refute, of having condemned the council of Chalcedon (Evagr. H. E. iii.31; Theod. Lect. p.561; Theophan. Chronogr. pp.129, 130). Macedonius having been deposed a.d.511, and Timotheus, an unscrupulous Monophysite monk, appointed to the see of Constantinople, Elias, whose principle appears to have been to accept the inevitable and to go the utmost possible length in obedience to the ruling powers, seized on the fact that he had abstained at first from anathematizing the council of Chalcedon, as a warrant for joining communion with him and receiving his synodical letter. Elias could not contend against his many unscrupulous enemies, and in 513 was driven from his see, dying in 518 in banishment Aila on the Red Sea shore, aet.88. Tillem. Mém. Eccl. xvi.; Cyril. Scythop. Vita S. Euthymii; and other authorities cited above.

[E.V.]

Elkesai, Elkesaites
Elkesai, Elkesaites (Elchasai, Hippolytus; Elxai, Elkessaioi, Epiphanius; Helkesaitai, Origen). A book bearing the name of Elkesai and purporting to contain angelic revelations, was, at the end of the 2nd cent., in high repute among certain Ebionite sectaries, who were most numerous in the district E. of the lower Jordan and the Dead Sea. This book first became known to orthodox writers in the 3rd cent., and we have accounts of it from three independent primary sources, Hippolytus, Origen, and Epiphanius. Hippolytus (Ref. ix.12, p.292) gives several extracts, and states that it was brought to Rome by a certain Alcibiades, a native of Apameia in Syria, and indicates that the time was during, or immediately after, the episcopate of Callistus -- i.e. c. a.d.222. The great controversy then agitating the church of Rome was whether, and with what limitations, forgiveness might be bestowed on grievous post-baptismal sin. Hippolytus took the side of rigour and Callistus of leniency. This book of Elkesai announced a new method of forgiveness of sin, asserted to have been revealed in the third year of Trajan, by which any person, no matter of what sins he might have been guilty (some of the very grossest are expressly mentioned), might obtain forgiveness by submitting to a new baptism with the use of a certain formula of which we shall speak presently. A similar baptism was prescribed as a remedy for the bite of a mad dog or a serpent or for disease. Hippolytus takes credit for resisting the teaching of Alcibiades, and blames Callistus for having, by the laxity of his doctrine and practice concerning church discipline, pre-disposed men's minds to the easy methods of forgiveness expounded in this book. Origen, in a fragment of a homily on the 82nd Psalm, preserved by Eusebius (H. E. vi.38) and assigned by Redepenning to a.d.247, speaks of the teaching of the Helcesaites, some specimens of which he gives, as having then but lately troubled the churches. Epiphanius, though a later witness, professes to speak from personal acquaintance with the book, and this is confirmed by his coincidence in a number of details with the other authorities. We may count the Pseudo-Clementine writings as a fourth source of information concerning the books of Elkesai. Hippolytus states that the book, according to its own account, had been obtained from Seres, in Parthia, by a righteous man named Elkesai; that its contents had been revealed by an angel 96 miles high, accompanied by a female of corresponding size; that the male was Son of God, and the female was called Holy Spirit. Epiphanius speaks of Elkesai as a false prophet. Probably this Elkesai was an imaginary personage, and we must reject the account of Epiphanius who assigns to him a certain part in the history of the Ebionite sects.

The book is evidently of Jewish origin. Jerusalem is made the centre of the world's devotion, and the right rule of prayer is to turn not necessarily to the East, but towards Jerusalem. The names of the book are formed from Hebrew roots. A further mark of Aramaic origin is the representation of the Holy Spirit as a female. The book ordered compliance with ordinances of the Jewish law, but condemned the rite of sacrifice, so involving the rejection of parts of O.T., and of the eating of flesh. The superiority of the forgiveness of sins by the washing of water over that by the fire of sacrifice is based on the superiority of water to fire (Hipp. ix.14; Epiph. Haer.19, p.42; Clem. Rec. i.48; Hom. xi.26). It is taught that Christ is but a created being, but the greatest of creatures, being Lord over angels as well as over every other created thing. The name Great King is applied to Him (Epiph. Haer.19, p.41; Hipp. ix.15; Hom. viii.21). The formula of baptism runs, In the name of the Most High God and of His Son, the Great King; but this Great King is not exclusively identified with Jesus of Nazareth, for He appeared in the world in successive incarnations, Adam being the first. The book agreed with the Clementines in complete rejection of St. Paul. It taught the lawfulness of denying the faith under persecution (Eus. vi.38; Epiph.19), thus getting rid of the class of offences as to the forgiveness of which there was then most controversy.

The statement of the book that the revelation was made in the 3rd year of Trajan is of no historic value. The work, however, which was the common groundwork of the Clementine Recognitions and Homilies [[179]Clementine Literature] asserts that a new gospel was published (the Homilies add |secretly|) after the destruction of the Holy Place; and it seems on other grounds probable that a number of Essenes, who had always held the Temple sacrifices in abomination, were brought to recognize Jesus as the true Prophet when the destruction of the Temple and the abolition of its sacrifices fulfilled His prediction. At this time, then, probably arose those Ebionite sects which combined a certain reverence for our Lord's utterances, and an acknowledgment of Him as a divine prophet, with the retention of a host of Essene usages and doctrines. Hence the book of Elkesai may have been, as it professed to be, a considerable time in secret circulation among the Ebionite sects before Alcibiades brought it to Rome, though it is also possible that it may have been then of quite recent manufacture.

It would seem to be long before the sect of Elkesaites disappeared. En-hedim, an Arabic author (c. a.d.987) quoted by Chwolson (Die Sabier, i.112, ii.543), tells of a sect of Sabeans of the Desert who practised frequent religious washings, and who counted one El-Chasaiach as their founder. See Ritschl, Zeitschrift für histor. Theol. (1853), pp.573 sqq., Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, pp.234 sqq.; Hilgenfeld, Nov. Test. extra Canonem Receptum, iii.153, where all the fragments of the book are collected; Uhlhorn, Hom. u. Recog. des Clem. Rom. p.392; and Lightfoot's Dissertation on the Essenes, |Ep. to Colossians,| pp.118 sqq.

[G.S.]

Elpidius (8), bp. of Laodicea
Elpidius (8), bp. of Laodicea in Syria at the close of the 4th cent. and opening of the 5th. He was originally a priest of Antioch under Meletius, whose confidence he enjoyed and with whom he resided (suskenos) (Theod. H. E. v.27). He shared in his master's sufferings under Valens, and accompanied by Flavian, attended him at the council of Constantinople a.d.381 (Labbe, ii.955). We next find him as bishop at a council at Constantinople a.d.394 (Labbe, ii.1151), and again at Constantinople at the close of a.d.403, as a member of the council summoned by Chrysostom's enemies, and issuing in his deposition. Elpidius had been an intimate friend of Chrysostom at Antioch, and now lent the weight of his age and well-deserved reputation to the defence of his old associate. When the validity of the canons of the council of Antioch, of suspected orthodoxy, used by Chrysostom's enemies as an instrument to secure their object, came into question before the emperor, Elpidius adroitly turned the tables on Acacius and his party by proposing that the advocates of the canons should declare themselves of the same faith with those who had promulgated them (Pallad. Dial. c.9, p.80). After Chrysostom's deposition and exile, Elpidius exerted himself strenuously in his behalf, dispatching letters to bishops and faithful laity in all parts of the world, exhorting them to remain true to Chrysostom, and encouraging them to bear up against persecution. Chrysostom wrote to Elpidius shortly after his arrival at Cucusus in 404, thanking him most warmly, and giving him information concerning the place of his banishment, his companions, and his health (Chrys. Ep.114). Four other letters from Chrysostom to Elpidius are extant, all written from Cucusus (Epp.25, 138, a.d.405; Ep.131, a.d.406; Ep.142, a.d.407).

Elpidius suffered for his fidelity to his friend in the persecution against the Joannite party under Atticus and Porphyry. In 406 he was deposed from his see, and was closely imprisoned in his house for three years (Pallad. Dial. p.195). In 414 Alexander, succeeding Porphyry as bp. of Antioch, restored Elpidius to his see in a manner which testified deep reverence for his character, and pope Innocent heard of it with extreme satisfaction (Baron.408 §§ 35, 37; Tillem. xi.274).

[E.V.]

Emilianus (8), solitary
Emilianus (8) (Aemilianus, San Millan), solitary; claimed by the Spanish Benedictines as joint patron of Spain with St. James (Sandoval, Fundaciones de San Benito en España, Madrid, 1601). The only original source of information about him is his Life by St. Braulio bp. of Saragossa, written about 50 years after his death, on the testimony of four of his disciples. St. Braulio gives no dates and no names of parents, but the common tradition is that St. Emilianus was born c.473, and died c.572. His birthplace and the site of his oratory have caused much controversy, Castile claiming him as born at Berceo, close to the existing monastery of San Millan, while Aragon urges Verdeyo, near Calatayud.

He began life as a shepherd, and while following his flock over the mountains had the dream which caused his conversion. He betook himself to St. Felix, a neighbouring hermit, for instruction in Catholic belief and practice. He soon left Verdejo for the mountains, wandering N.W. into the remotest parts between Burgos and Logrono. For 40 years he lived a hermit's life there, mostly on or near the peak of La Cogolla (according to the tradition of the monastery; there is no mention of the Cogolla of St. Braulio's life), whence the after-name of the monastery which commemorated him -- San Millan de la Cogolla. Didymus, bp. of Tarrazona (Turiasso), much against the saint's will; ordained him presbyter, and gave him the cure of Vergegium. Here his entire unworldliness drew upon him the hatred of his brother clergy. He was accused before Didymus of wasting the goods of the church, and deprived of his cure. Thus released from an unwelcome office, Emilianus passed the rest of his life at an oratory near Vergegium. During this second retirement, although his personal asceticism increased rather than diminished, he allowed himself to be surrounded by a small circle of disciples, and became widely famed for charity and tenderness towards the poor. St. Braulio nowhere speaks of him as monachus, but only as presbyter. Tamayo de Salazar, Martyr. Hisp. vi.109; Esp. Sagrada, l.2; Mabillon, saec. i.; Yepes, Chron. Benedictin. i. ann.572; Sanchez, Poesias Cast. ant. al Siglo XV. vol. ii.

[M.A.W.]

Encratites
Encratites (Enkrateis, Irenaeus; Enkratetai, Clem. Alex.; Enkratitai, Hippol.), heretics who abstained from flesh, wine, and the marriage bed, believing them essentially impure. Persons who so abstained called themselves continent (enkrateis, Iren. i.28, p.107); and the slightly modified form, Encratites, soon became a technical name to denote those whose asceticism was regarded as of a heretical character (Clem. Alex. Paed. ii.2, p.182; Strom. i.15, p.359, vii.17, p.900; Hippol. Ref. viii.20, p.276). We are not bound to suppose that all who were known by the name formed a single united sect. Irenaeus, e.g. (l.c.), says that some of the earliest of them were followers of Saturninus and Marcion; and it is reasonable to understand by this, not that they united in a single heretical body, but that, independently using the same mode of life and making the same boast of continence, they were known to the orthodox by the same name. The practice of such abstinence was older than Christianity. Not to speak of the Indian ascetics (to whom Clement of Alexandria refers as predecessors of the Encratites), the abstinence of the Essenes, both in respect of food and of marriage, is notorious. Josephus's account of the Essenes is referred to by Porphyry, who, like them, objected both to the use of animal food and to animal sacrifices. An interesting specimen of Pythagorean doctrine on this subject is his work peri apoches ton empsuchon, addressed to a friend who after trial of abstinence had wickedly relapsed into the use of flesh diet. He insists on the importance of keeping the soul, as far as possible, free from the bonds of matter, to which animal food tends to enslave it; on the wisdom of avoiding everything over which evil demons have power, viz. all material things, and especially animal food; and on the injustice of depriving of life for our pleasure animals akin to ourselves, having reason, emotions, sentiments, completely like ours.

The account given by Hegesippus of James the Just (Eus. H. E. ii.23) shews that righteousness of the Essene type was clearly held in admiration in the Christian church; and I. Tim. iv.3-6 shews that teachers had already arisen who inculcated such abstinence as a duty. But it does not appear that they held the Gnostic doctrine, that matter is essentially evil, and its creation the work of a being inferior or hostile to the Supreme; for the apostle's argument assumes as common ground that the things they rejected were creatures of the good God. We find from the Clementines that the Ebionite sects which arose out of Essenism permitted marriage, but disallowed flesh meat and wine; and that their doctrine respecting God's work of creation was quite orthodox. Hippolytus, too, who takes his account of the Encratites from his own acquaintance with them as a then existing sect, describes them as orthodox in doctrine concerning God and Christ, and differing from the church only in their manner of life. But the Gnostic teachers named by Irenaeus (l.c.) undoubtedly based their asceticism on the doctrine of the evil of matter, denying it to be the work of God, and consequently deemed it wrong, by generation, to bring new souls under the dominion of death, and expose them to the miseries of this life. A full discussion of their arguments occurs in the third book of Clement's Stromateis (though the name Encratites does not occur here), the principal writers whom he combats being Marcion, Tatian, already mentioned by Irenaeus as a leader of that sect, and Julius Cassianus. The Gospel according to the Egyptians contained alleged sayings of our Lord, which they used in support of their doctrines. Epiphanius mentions that they used other apocryphal writings, such as the Acts of Andrew, John, and Thomas. This controversy seems to have been actively carried on in the last quarter of the 2nd cent. Eusebius (H. E. iv.28) relates that Musanus, a writer early in that period, addressed a very effective dissuasive argument to certain brethren who had turned aside to that sect, then newly come into existence; and Theodoret (Haer. Fab. i.21) mentions that another writer of the same date, Apollinaris, wrote against the Severian Encratites. Eusebius (iv.29) derives this name Severians from a certain Severus, who became an Encratite leader shortly after Tatian. He adds that these Severians received the O.T. and the Gospels, only putting their peculiar
interpretations on them, but reviled Paul, rejecting his epistles and also Acts. This shews Ebionite features, and these Severians may have been of Ebionite origin, for great diversity probably existed between the teaching of persons classed together as Encratites. The Severians are described by Epiphanius (Haer.45) with all the features of an Ophite sect; but evidently from hearsay only, as he speaks of the sect as having almost died out; and Lipsius (Q.-K. des Epiph.215) gives good reason for thinking that he found no article on them in previous heretical treatises. Epiphanius describes (Haer.48) the Encratites as widely spread, enumerating seven different countries where they were then to be found. Evidently, therefore, there were in these countries heretics leading an ascetic life, though it would be unsafe to assert an absolute identity in their teaching. We may conclude Epiphanius mistaken in placing the Encratites after the Tatianites, as if they were a branch of the latter sect, the true relation being just the opposite. Some additional information about the Encratites is in the work of Macarius Magnes, pub. in Paris, 1876. He wrote c.400, and enumerates (iii.43, p.151) some countries where the Encratites (whom he also called Apotactites and Eremites) were to be found. He was thus, probably, acquainted with the work of Epiphanius. But he adds that a defence of their doctrines in eight books had been published by a leader of theirs, Dositheus, a Cilician, in which he inveighed against marriage and the tasting of wine or partaking of flesh meat. In his account of the Samaritan Dositheus, Epiphanius introduces some Encratite features not attested by other authorities, and may have allowed his knowledge of the doctrine of the one Dositheus to affect his account of the other. We cannot give much weight to the account of Philaster, who (72) assigns the name and doctrine of the Encratites to the followers of Aerius; and we may wholly disregard the inventive |Praedestinatus| (who represents the Encratites as refuted by an Epiphanius, bp. of Ancyra), except to repeat his distinction between Encratite and Catholic abstainers -- viz. the former asserted the food they rejected to be evil; the latter owned it to be good, too good for them. Canons of St. Basil on Encratite baptism (clxxxviii. can. i; cxcix. can.47) have given rise to some dispute, but it seems clear that St. Basil wished to reject the baptism of these Encratites, not because the orthodox formula of baptism was lacking, but because, regarding them as tainted with Marcionite error, he could not accept the verbal acknowledgment of the Father in the baptismal formula as atonement for the insult offered to the Creator, Whose work they looked on as evil. For a reference to these canons, as well as to the law of the Theodosian code (a.d.381) against the Manicheans, who sheltered themselves under the name of Encratites, see Apostolici. Not many years earlier the Encratites were an existing sect in Galatia; for Sozomen (v.11) records the sufferings of Busiris, at that time one of them, in the persecution under Julian.

[G.S.]

Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix, bp. of Pavia
Ennodius (1) Magnus Felix, bp. of Pavia, born at Arles (Ennod. Ep. lib. vii.8) c.473; connected with Romans of distinction (ib. iv. i 25). The invasion of the Visigoths, and the consequent loss of his patrimony, caused him to migrate at an early age to Milan, where he was educated in the house of an aunt. In 489, the year in which Theodoric invaded Italy, his aunt died, and he was saved from beggary by marriage (Eucharist. de Vit.). A dangerous sickness (Ep. viii.24) led him to serious thought and suggested the composition of his Eucharisticon, in which he reviews with penitence his past life. He was subsequently ordained deacon by Epiphanius bp. of Pavia, whose exhortations determined him to renounce his marriage, with the consent of his wife, who retired into a convent. In 494 he accompanied Epiphanius (Ennod. Vit. Epiphan.234 A) on a mission to Gundebaud, king of the Burgundians, to procure the ransom of certain Ligurian prisoners. Upon the death of Epiphanius two years later he visited Rome, and gained reputation by composing an apology for pope Symmachus and the synod which acquitted him, as well as by a public panegyric in honour of Theodoric. The former of these was inserted in the Acta Conciliorum; the latter is generally included in collections of the Panegyrici Veteres. Under the next pope, Hormisdas, he succeeded Maximus II. in the see of Pavia, and was sent in 515, and again in 517, on an embassy to the emperor Anastasius to oppose the spread of the Eutychian heresy. Both embassies were unsuccessful. Anastasius, failing to corrupt or bend the bishop, had him placed on board an unseaworthy vessel. Ennodius, however, arrived safely in his diocese, which he continued to administer for four years. He died at the age of 48, and was buried in the church of St. Michael at Pavia, July 17, 521.

His writings exemplify throughout a profane tendency of thought and expression which Christian writers in Gaul were slow to abandon. Many of his letters suit the pen of a heathen rhetorician rather than of a Christian bishop. His illustrations are commonly drawn from Greek mythology. He speaks of divine grace as descending |de Superis,| and sets the Fates side by side with Jesus Christ. His style is turgid, involved, and affected. He seems to shrink from making himself intelligible lest he should be thought commonplace, and the result is unattractive. His works are reprinted with notes in Migne's Patr. vol. lxiii. For his Life see Sirmond's ed.; Ceillier, Auteurs sacr. et ecclés. x.569; for a just estimate of his literary merits, Ampère, Hist. lit. de la France, t. ii. c. vii.

[E.M.Y.]

Ephraim (4) the Syrian
Ephraim (4) the Syrian, usually called Ephrem Syrus, from the Syriac form of his name Aphrem, was born in Mesopotamia, for he describes his home as lying between the Tigris and the Euphrates (Opp. Syr. i.23), probably at Nisibis. As Edessa became the chief scene of his labours, he is generally styled the Edessene. It is comparatively certain that he died, as stated by St. Jerome, |in extreme old age,| c. a.d.373, and therefore was probably born c. a.d.308.

The story of his parents seeking to train him in idolatry is at variance with his own statements. In his Confession (Opp. Gr. i.129) he says, |When I sinned, I was already a partaker of grace: I had been early taught about Christ by my parents; they who had begotten me after the flesh had trained me in the fear of the Lord. I had seen my neighbours living piously; I had heard of many suffering for Christ. My own parents were confessors before the Judge: yea, I am the kindred of martyrs.| Or again, in his Syriac works (Opp. Syr. ii.499): |I was born in the way of truth; and though my boyhood understood not the greatness of the benefit, I knew it when trial came.|

In 337 Constantine the Great died, and Sapor, king of Persia, seized the opportunity of invading Mesopotamia. He commenced the siege of Nisibis in 338, and in 70 days had brought it to the verge of surrender. But Ephrem induced the aged bishop James to mount the walls and pray for the Divine succour. Shortly afterwards swarms of mosquitoes and horse-flies made the horses and elephants unmanageable, and Sapor withdrew his forces lest he should bring upon himself heavier chastisement. Before the end of 338 St. James died, when Ephrem probably left Nisibis, and after a short stay at Amid, to which city his mother is said to have belonged, travelled towards Edessa, the chief seat both of Christianity and of learning in Mesopotamia.

Knowing no handicraft and having no means of living, Ephrem there entered the service of a bath-keeper, but devoted his spare time to teaching and reasoning with the natives. While so engaged one day his words were overheard by an aged monk who had descended from his hermitage into the city, and being rebuked by him for still mingling with the world, Ephrem withdrew into a cavern among the mountains, adopted the monastic dress, and commenced a life of extreme asceticism, giving himself up to study and to writing. His works were widely diffused, and disciples gathered round him, of whom many rose to eminence as teachers, and several of whom he commemorates in his Testament. The growing fame of Basil, bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, inspired Ephrem with a strong desire to visit one who had been shewn him in a dream as a column of fire reaching from earth to heaven.

His journey to Caesarea is vouched for by Basil's brother Gregory, and by Ephrem himself in his Encomium on Basil. Accompanied by an interpreter, he arrived on the eve of the Epiphany, and spent the night in the streets. The next morning they took their place in an obscure corner of the church, and Ephrem groaned in spirit as he saw Basil seated in a magnificent pulpit, arrayed in shining garments, with a mitre sparkling with jewels on his head, and surrounded by a multitude of clergy adorned with almost equal splendour. |Alas!| he said to his interpreter, |I fear our labour is in vain. For if we, who have given up the world, have advanced so little in holiness, what spiritual gifts can we expect to find in one surrounded by so great pomp and glory?| But when Basil began to preach, it seemed to Ephrem as though the Holy Ghost, in shape like a dove, sat upon his shoulder, and suggested to him the words. From time to time the people murmured their applause, and Ephrem twice repeated sentences which had fallen from the preacher's lips. Upon this Basil sent his archdeacon to invite him into his presence, which, offended at the saint's ragged attire, he did reluctantly, and only after he had been twice bidden to summon him. After embracing one another, with many florid compliments, Basil asked him how it was that, knowing no Greek, he had twice cheered the sermon, and repeated sentences of it to the multitude? And Ephrem answered, |It was not I who praised and repeated, but the Holy Ghost by my mouth.| Under pressure from St. Basil, Ephrem consented to be ordained deacon. When Basil had laid his hands upon him, being suddenly endowed with the knowledge of Syriac, he said to Ephrem in that tongue, |O Lord, bid him arise,| upon which Ephrem answered in Greek, |Save me, and raise me up, O God, by Thy grace.| Doubtless Ephrem, travelling about with an educated companion, and having been an eminent teacher at Edessa, a place famous for its schools, had picked up some knowledge of Greek and Hebrew, some evidence of which we shall later gather from his own writings. Two instances are given in the Acta of the influence of Ephrem's teaching on St. Basil. It had been usual at Caesarea in the Doxology to say, Glory be to the Father, and to the Son, to the Holy Ghost; but after Ephrem's visit Basil inserted and before the third clause. Whereat the people in church murmured, and Basil defended himself by saying that his Syrian visitor had taught him that the insertion of the conjunction was necessary for the more clear manifestation of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. The other instance is as follows: In Gen. i.2 the LXX renders |The Spirit of God was borne upon the surface of the water.| So St. Basil had understood it, but the Peshitta-Syriac version renders it, |The Spirit of God brooded upon the face of the waters,| which Ephrem explained of the Spirit resting upon them with a warm and fostering influence as of a hen sitting upon her nest, and so endowing them with the power of bringing forth the moving creature that hath life. St. Basil gives two reasons for trusting his Syrian friend. First, that Ephrem led a very ascetic life; |for in proportion as a man abandons the love of the world, so does he excel in that perfection which rises above the world.| Secondly, that |Ephrem is an acute thinker, and has a thorough knowledge of the divine philosophy,| i.e. of the general sense of Holy Scripture. There is nothing to suggest that any appeal was made to the Hebrew, as Benedict suggests, though, in fact, the Syriac and Hebrew words are the same; and, curiously enough, in his own exposition (Opp. Syr. i.8), Ephrem says that the words simply mean that a wind was in motion; for the waters were instinct, he argues, with no creative energy till the fourth day. From Caesarea, Ephrem was recalled to Edessa by the news that the city was assailed by numerous heresies. On his journey he rescued the people of Samosata from the influence of false teaching by a miracle, and on reaching home sought to counteract heresy by teaching orthodoxy in hymns. The fatalistic tenets of Bardesan, a Gnostic who flourished at the end of the 2nd cent., had been embodied in 150 psalms, a number fixed upon in irreverent imitation of the Psalter of David. His son Honorius had set these hymns to music, and so sweet were both the words and tunes that they were known by heart even by children and sung to the guitar. To combat their influence Ephrem composed numerous hymns himself, and trained young women, who were aspirants after the conventual life, to sing them in chorus. These hymns have no rhyme, nor do they scan, but are simply arranged in parallel lines, containing each, as a rule, seven syllables. Their poetry consists in their elevated sentiments and richness of metaphor, but their regular form was an aid to the memory, and rendered them capable of being set to music. The subjects of these hymns were the Life of our Lord, including His Nativity, Baptism, Fasting, and chief incidents of his ministry, His Passion, Resurrection, and Ascension. He wrote also on Repentance, on the Dead, and on Martyrs. Upon the Festivals of our Lord, we read, on the first days of the week, and on the days of martyrs, Ephrem gathered round him his choirs, and the whole city flocked to hear them, and the poems of Bardesan lost their influence. While thus occupied Basil endeavoured to persuade him to visit Caesarea again, intending to make him a bishop, but the saint even feigned madness rather than consent. Meanwhile he wrote upon the devastation committed by the Persians, the Maccabean martyrs, the Life of Constantine, and so on, until the accession of Julian rudely disturbed his studies. On his expedition against the Persians Julian had advanced as far as Haran, a town so famous for obstinate adherence to heathenism that Haranite in Syriac is equivalent to pagan, and there determined to hold a great sacrifice, to which he commanded the Edessenes to send chosen citizens to do him homage, and to grace by their presence his restoration of the old cult. But this met with such fierce opposition on the part of the people, and such an eager desire for martyrdom, that the embassy withdrew in haste, and Julian threatened Edessa with bitter vengeance upon his return. Ephrem, who had exerted himself to the utmost in this crisis, resumed his hermit life, quitting the mountains only for controversy with heretics or for charitable services. As a controversialist, Gregory of Nyssa relates of him with great approbation an act contrary to modern views of morality: The |insane and irrational Apollinaris| had written a treatise in two volumes containing much that was contrary to Scripture. These he had given in charge of a lady at Edessa, from whom Ephrem borrowed them, pretending that he was a disciple of Apollinaris and was preparing to defend his views. Before returning them he glued the leaves together, and then challenged the heretic to a public disputation. Apollinaris accepted the challenge so far as to consent to read from these books what he had written, declining more on account of his great age; but he found the leaves so firmly fastened together that he could not open them, and withdrew, deeply mortified by his opponent's unworthy victory.

Far more creditable is the last act recorded of Ephrem. While withdrawn in his rocky cavern he heard that Edessa had been visited by a severe famine. He came down to the city, and induced the richer citizens to bring out their secret stores of food, on condition, however, that Ephrem should himself take charge of them. He managed them with such skill, prudence, and honesty that they sufficed for the Edessenes and for numerous strangers also. The next year was one of great plenty, and Ephrem resumed his solitary life amidst the prayers and gratitude of all classes.

His death followed shortly afterwards, fully foreseen by himself, as his Testament proves. In this hymn, written in heptasyllabic metre, after playing upon his own name and professing his faith, he commands his disciples not to bury him beneath the altar, nor in a church, nor amongst the martyrs, but in the common burying-ground of strangers, in his gown and cowl, with no spices nor waxlights, but with their prayers. It ends with an account of Lamprotata, daughter of the prefect of Edessa, who earnestly sought permission to be buried in due time at Ephrem's feet.

The works of Ephrem were most voluminous. Sozomen (Eccl. Hist. iii.16) says that he wrote three million lines, but a large proportion has perished. What remains is said by Bellarmine to be |pious rather than learned.| The great edition of his works is that in six vols. fol., pub. at Rome in 1732-1743, under the editorship of the Maronite Peter Mobarek, better known by the Latin translation of his surname Benedict, and completed after his death by J. S. E. Asseman, titular bp. of Apamaea, who is answerable, however, for the translation of only vol. vi. pp.425-687. The first three vols. consist of sermons and discourses in Greek with a Latin translation. Many of these are probably genuine, for Sozomen says that already in his lifetime works of Ephrem were translated into Greek, and as both Chrysostom and Jerome were acquainted with them, and Gregory of Nyssa quotes his Testament, it is certain that several of his writings were very soon thus made available for general use. But some pieces must be received with caution, and one (Opp. Gr. ii.356 seq.) is almost certainly not genuine.

The other three vols. contain his Syriac works, the most important being his Exposition of O.T. Of the commentary upon the Gospels few traces remain, but Dionysius Barsalibi, bp. of Amid, says that Ephrem had followed the order of the Diatessaron of Tatian. As copies of Dionysius's own commentary exist in the British Museum, the Bodleian Library, and elsewhere, some portions of Ephrem's work, as well as some idea of Tatian's arrangement, might be obtained from it. A collection of Armenian translations of Ephrem's works, pub. in 4 vols.8vo by the Mechitarists at Venice in 1836, includes one (in vol. iii.) of his commentary on St. Paul's epistles.

Following upon the commentary are 12 metrical expositions of portions of Scripture, such as the creation of man in God's image, the temptation of Eve, the translation of Enoch, etc., occupying pp.316-319. Some of these, especially that upon the mission of Jonah and the repentance of the Ninevites, have been translated into English by the Rev. H. Burgess (Lond.1856), the author also of Select Metrical Hymns and Homilies of Ephraem Syrus (two vols. Lond.1853). These expositions are followed by 13 metrical homilies upon the Nativity, pp.396-436. Next come 56 homilies against false doctrines (pp.437-560); chiefly against Bardesan, Marcion, and Manes.

In vol. iii., after the Acta S. Ephraems (i.-lxiii.), the first place is held by 87 homilies on the Faith, in answer to freethinkers. The last seven of these are called sermons upon the Pearl, which Ephrem takes as an emblem of the Christian faith, working out the idea with great beauty, though with that diffuseness which is the common fault of his writings. Three very long controversial homilies (pp.164-208) follow, repeating many of the same thoughts.

A sermon against the Jews, preached on Palm Sunday (pp.209-224), has been translated by the Rev. J. B. Morris into English. Then follow 85 hymns (pp.225-359) to be used at the burial of bishops, presbyters, deacons, monks, princes, rich men, strangers, matrons, women, youths, children, in time of plague, and for general use. These are trans. into Eng. in Burgess's Select Metrical Hymns.

Next come four short homilies on Free-will (pp.359-366), partly following the order of the Syriac alphabet; then 76 homilies on Repentance (pp.367-561). Next, 12 sermons on the Paradise of Eden (pp.562-598); and finally, 18 sermons on miscellaneous subjects (pp.599-687). Considerable activity has been displayed in editing other Syriac works of Ephrem -- e.g. by Dr. J. J. Overbeck, in S. Ephraemi Syri, Rabulae, Balaei, aliorumque Opera Selecta (Oxf., Clarendon Press, 1865). Almost more important is |S. Ephraemi Syri Carmina Nisibena, ed. by Dr. G. Bickell, Lipsiae, 1866.| Of these hymns, the first 21 treat of the long struggle between Sapor and the Romans for the possession of Nisibis, from its siege in 350 to just before its miserable surrender by Jovian in 363. The next 5 hymns have perished; in Nos.26-30 the scene is Edessa, and the subject the schism there in the bishopric of Barses, a.d.361-370. Bickell thinks these were written c.370, towards the close of Ephrem's life. Hymns 31-34 treat of Haran and the many troubles its bishop, Vitus, endured from the pagans there. The other hymns (35-77) treat of the Overthrow of Death and Satan by our Lord, of the Resurrection of the Body in refutation of Bardesan and Manes, of Dialogues between Death, Satan, and Man, and of Hymns upon the Resurrection, not of a controversial but of a consolatory character. From the directions for singing given with each hymn, and the existence in most of them of a response or refrain noted in the MS. in red, the collection was evidently for liturgical use.

Bertheau edited a Syriac homily of St. Ephrem from a MS. at Rome (Göttingen, 1837), and another from the Museum Borghianum was pub. by Zingerle and Mösinger in Monumenta Syriaca (Innsbruck, 1869), vol. i. pp.4-12; in vol. ii. (pub.1878) numerous fragments from MSS. at Rome are found, pp.33-51. In most Chrestomathies specimens of Ephrem's writings are given, and that by Hahn and Sieffert consists entirely of them.

As a commentator Ephrem holds a middle place between the literal interpretation of Theodore of Mopsuestia and the allegorical method of Origen. As Basil and Gregory were both strongly influenced by Origen, Ephrem's independence is the more remarkable. In commenting on Is. xxv.7 (vol. ii.61), he gives a statement of his method as follows: |Though the prophet is speaking of Sennacherib he has a covert reference to Satan. For the spiritual sense is usually the same as the ecclesiastical. The words therefore of the prophets concerning those things which have happened or were about to happen to the Jews are mystically to be referred to the future propagation of the church, and the providence of God and His judgments upon the just and upon evil-doers.| Benedict, followed by Lengerke, instead of ecclesiastical translates historical; what Ephrem really says is that there is first the literal interpretation, and secondly a spiritual one, which generally refers to the church.

The question has often been asked whether he really possessed any competent acquaintance with Hebrew and Greek. He had not had a learned education, but nevertheless displays considerable knowledge, including some of physical science, and in his discourses on fate, freewill, etc., he manifests, without parade, a sufficient mastery of Greek philosophy to refute the Gnostic errors prevalent in the East. We need not be surprised, therefore, that Sozomen says (H. E. iii.16) that Basil wondered at his learning.

The chief places which suggest some knowledge of Hebrew are as follow. Commenting on the creation of whales in Gen. i.21 (Opp. Syr. i.18), he says that they and leviathan inhabit the waters, behemoth the land; quoting not only Job xl.15, but Ps. l.10, which he translates, |And behemoth upon a thousand hills.| Ephrem's rendering is perfectly possible, and must have been obtained from some Jewish source.

On I. Sam. iii.11 he rightly says that both the Syr. and Heb. names for cymbal resemble the verb so translated. In I. Sam. xxi.7 he correctly explains the word |detained| by noting that the Heb. word neasar signifies pressed or bidden away. In II. Kings iii.4 he rightly says that the Syr. nokdo is really a Heb. word, and means |head shepherd.|

These points might have been picked up from conversation with others, and there is a marked absence of acquaintance with the language in his commentary as a whole.

Of Greek he also shews but a very moderate knowledge, though a more real acquaintance with it than with Hebrew. His own words in Opt. Syr. ii.317 are to the point: |Not from the rivulet of my own thought have I opened these things for thy drinking, for I am poor and destitute alike of meat and drink; but, like a bottle from the sea or drops from a caldron, I have begged these things from just men, who were lords of the fountain.|

An example will shew him much more at home in Greek than in Hebrew. In I. Kings xiv.3 (Opp. Syr. i.480) the Syriac version has, instead of cracknels, a rare word signifying sweetmeats. Ephrem notices that the Greek has grapes, and gives this as an explanation of the Syriac; but makes no reference to the Hebrew word, which certainly signifies some kind of cakes, such as might rightly be called sweetmeats, but certainly is no kind of fruit.

From his intense devotion and piety, his hymns were largely adopted into the services of the church, and prayers also composed by him are found in most Oriental liturgies. His personal character deserves high praise. He was an extreme ascetic, passing his whole life in poverty, raggedness, humility, and gentleness. His gentleness has been denied on account of the fierce language sometimes used in controversial writings. We may, however, take his words in his Testament as literally true (Opp. Gr. ii.396): |Throughout my whole life, neither by night nor day, have I reviled any one, nor striven with any one; but in their assemblies I have disputed with those who deny the faith. For if a wolf is entering the fold, and the dog goes not out and barks, the master beats the dog. But a wise man hates no one, or if he hates at all, he hates only a fool.|

|His words reach the heart, for they treat powerfully of human joys and cares; they depict the struggles and storms of life, and sometimes its calm rest. He knows how to awaken terror and alarm, as he sets forth before the sinner his punishment, God's righteous judgment, his destined condemnation; he knows, too, how to build up and comfort, where he proclaims the hopes of the faithful and the bliss of eternal happiness. His words ring in mild, soft tones when he paints the happy rest of the pious, the peace of soul enjoyed by those who cleave to the Christian faith; they thunder and rage like a storm wind when he scourges heretics, or chastises pride and folly. Ephraim was an orator possessed of spirit and taste, and his poetical gifts were exactly those calculated to give weight and influence to his authority as a teacher among his countrymen| (Roediger). As such they venerated him, giving him especially the title of Malphono, the teacher; but one of his greatest services to the church was the marvellous variety and richness which he gave to its public worship. Ephraim's quotations from the Gospels have been collected by F. C. Burkitt (Texts and Studies, vol. vii. No.2, Camb. Univ. Press). His Commentary on the Diatessaron was trans. into Latin by J. B. Aucher, and pub. in this form by G. Mösinger (Venice, 1876). See Also J. H. Hill, A Dissertation on the Gospel Commentary of S. Ephraim (Edinburgh, 1896). The Fragments of S. Ephraim have been ed. by J R. Harris for the (Camb. Univ. Press).

[R.P.S.]

Ephraim (6), bp. of Antioch and patriarch
Ephraim (6) (Ephrem, Ephraemius, or, as Theophanes gives the name, Euphraimius), bp. of Antioch and patriarch, a.d.527-545. The title, ho Amidios, given him by Theophanes, indicates that he was a native of Amida in Armenia. He devoted the early part of his life to civil employments, and became Count of the East in the reign of Justin I. The city of Antioch having been nearly destroyed in a.d.525 and 526 by earthquake and conflagration, Ephraim was sent by Justin as commissioner to relieve the sufferers and restore the city. The high qualities manifested in the fulfilment of these duties gained the affection and respect of the people of Antioch, who unanimously chose him bishop on the death of Euphrasius (Evagr. H. E. iv.5, 6). His consecration is placed in a.d.357. As bishop he exhibited an unwavering firmness against the heretical tendencies of his day. Theophanes says that he shewed |a divine zeal against schismatics| (Chronogr. p.118). Moschus tells a story of his encounter near Hierapolis with one of the pillar ascetics, a follower of Severus and the Acephali (Prat. Spiritual. c.36). Ephraim examined synodically the tenets of Syncleticus, metropolitan of Tarsus, who was suspected of Eutychian leanings but was acquitted (Phot. Cod.228). In 537, at the bidding of Justinian, he repaired with Hypatius of Ephesus and Peter of Jerusalem to Gaza to hold a council in the matter of Paul the patriarch of Alexandria, who had been banished to that city and there deposed. In obedience to the emperor Justinian, Ephraim held a synod at Antioch, which repudiated the doctrines of Origen as heretical (Liberat. c.23, apud Labbe, Concil. v.777 seq.; Baronius, Annal.537, 538) He was the author of a large number of theological treatises directed against Nestorius, Eutyches, Severus, and the Acephali, and in defence of the decrees of Chalcedon. In 546, yielding to severe pressure, he subscribed the edict Justinian had put forth condemning |the three chapters| (Facund. Pro Defens. Trium Capit. iv.4). He did not survive the disgrace of this concession, and died in 547.

His copious theological works have almost entirely perished, and we have little knowledge of them save through Photius (Biblioth. Cod.228, 229), who speaks of having read three of the volumes, but gives particulars of two only. Some few fragments of his defence of the council of Chalcedon, and of the third book against Severus, and other works, are given by Mai (Bibl. Nov. iv.63, vii.204) and are printed by Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. par.2, pp.2099 seq.). Theophanes, Chronogr. ad ann.519, p.118 d; Moschus, Prat. Spiritual. cc.36, 37; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.507; Fabric. Bibl. Graec. lib. v. c.38; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii.733).

[E.V.]

Epiphanes, a Gnostic writer
Epiphanes, a Gnostic writer about the middle of the 2nd cent., or earlier. Clement of Alexandria (Strom. iii. p.511) gives the following account of him. He was the son of Carpocrates, by a mother named Alexandria, a native of Cephallenia. He died at the age of 17, and at Same, a city of Cephallenia, a handsome temple and other buildings were raised in his memory; and at the new moon the Cephallenians were wont to celebrate his apotheosis as a god by sacrifices, libations, banquets, and the singing of hymns. He had been instructed by his father in the ordinary circle of arts and sciences, and in the Platonic philosophy. He was the founder of the |Monadic Gnosis,| and from him flowed the heresy of those afterwards known as Carpocratians. He was the author of a work on Justice, which he made to consist in equality. He taught that, God having given His benefits to all alike and in common, human laws are censurable which instituted the distinction of meum and tuum, and which secure to one as his peculiar possession that to which all have an equal right. This communistic doctrine he extended to the sexual relations. Whatever may have been the origin of the phrase |Monadic Gnosis,| the doctrine here described seems the direct opposite of Dualism. Instead of accounting for the existence of evil as the work of a hostile principle, this theory would represent moral evil as a mere fiction of human laws, perversely instituted in opposition to the will of the Creator.

There is a passage in Irenaeus (I. xi.3, p.54) which, it has been contended, gives us another specimen of the teaching of Epiphanes. In giving an account of the doctrines of some followers of Valentinus, after stating the theory of Secundus, he goes on to mention the description which another |illustrious teacher of theirs| (clarus magister) gives of the origin of the primary Tetrad. In this the first principle is stated to be one existing before all things, surpassing all thought and speech, which the author calls Oneliness (monotes). With this Monotes co-existed a power which he calls Unity (henotes). This Monotes and Henotes constituting absolute unity (to hen ousai) emitted (though not in any proper sense of that word) a principle the object of thought only, which reason calls Monad. And with this Monad co-existed a power consubstantial with it, which the author calls Unit (to hen). From this Tetrad came all the rest of the Aeons. Pearson conjectured (see Dodwell, Dissect. in Iren. iv. §§ 25) that the |clarus magister| of the old Latin translation represented epiphanes didaskalos, and that this Epiphanes was a proper name, or at least that there was a play upon words referring to that name. The doctrine of the extract, then, which seems an attempt to reconcile the theory of a Tetrad with strong belief in the unity of the First Principle, might well be a part of the Monadic Gnosis, of which Epiphanes was said to be the author. Pearson's restoration of the Greek has since been pretty nearly verified by the recovery of the passage as reproduced by Hippolytus (Ref. vi.38), where it runs allos de tis epiphanes didaskalos auton. Here the word in question is plainly an adjective, and Tertullian so understood it, who translates (adv. Valent.37) |insignioris apud eos magistri.| On the other hand, Epiphanius understood the passage of Epiphanes. On examining what he tells of that heretic (Haer.32), it is plain that Epiphanius has been following Irenaeus until, on coming to the words hepiphanes didaskalos, he goes off to Clement of Alexandria, and puts in what he there found about Epiphanes. But Neander has made it almost certain that he person to whom Irenaeus really refers is Marcus (17). He points out that these four names for the members of the primary Tetrad, Monotes, Henotes, Monas, and Hen, which the |illustrious teacher| (c.11) speaks of as names of his own giving, occur again with a kath' ha proeiretai in a passage cited from Marcus by name (Iren. i.15, p.74).

[G.S.]

Epiphanius, bp. of Salamis
Epiphanius (1), bp. of Salamis in Cyprus, zealous champion of orthodox faith and monastic piety, was born at Besanduke, a village near Eleutheropolis in Palestine. As in 392, twelve years before his death, he was an aged man, we may conjecturally date his birth between 310 and 320. Much of his early lifetime was spent with the monks of Egypt, among whom he not only acquired a burning zeal for ecclesiastical orthodoxy and the forms of ascetic life then coming into favour, but also first came in contact with various kinds of heretics. When twenty years old he returned home and built a monastery near Besanduke, of which he undertook the direction. He was ordained presbyter by Eutychius, then bp. of Eleutheropolis. With St. Hilarion, the founder of Palestinian monasticism, Epiphanius early stood in intimate relation, and at a time when the great majority of Oriental bishops favoured Arian or semi-Arian views, he adhered with unshaken fidelity to the Nicene faith, and its persecuted champions, Eusebius of Vercelli and Paulinus of Antioch, whom Constantius had banished from their sees. In 367 he was elected bp. of Constantia, the ancient Salamis, in Cyprus, where for 36 years he discharged the episcopal office with the zeal he had shewn in his monastery. The whole island was soon covered with monastic institutions. With the monks of Palestine, and especially of his own monastery at Eleutheropolis, he continued as bishop to hold uninterrupted communication. People consulted him on every important question. Some years after his elevation to the episcopate, he addressed a letter to the faithful in Arabia, in defence of the perpetual virginity of Mary, afterwards incorporated in his great work, Against all Heresies (Haer. lxxviii.). Soon after, several presbyters of Suedra in Pamphylia invoked his assistance in their controversy with Arians and Macedonians. Similar applications came from other quarters; e.g. by an Egyptian Christian named Hypatius, and by a presbyter, Conops, apparently a Pisidian, who, with his co-presbyters, sought instruction in a long series of disputed doctrines. This was the origin of his Ankurotos (Ancoratus) in 374, an exposition of the faith, which, anchor-like, might fix the mind when tossed by the waves of heresy. A similar occasion produced his great heresiological work, written in the years 374-377, the so-called Panarion, on which his fame chiefly rests. He wrote this at the request of Acacius and Paulus, two presbyters and heads of monasteries in Coele-Syria, and in it attacks the Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd cents., and the Arians, semi-Arians, Macedonians, Apollinarians, Origenists, of his own time. About 376 he was taking an active part in the Apollinarian controversies. Vitalis, a presbyter of Antioch, had been consecrated bishop by Apollinaris himself; whereupon Epiphanius undertook a journey to Antioch to recall Vitalis from his error and reconcile him to the orthodox bp. Paulinus. His efforts, however, proved unsuccessful. Though not himself present at the oecumenical council of Constantinople, 381, which ensured the triumph of the Nicene doctrine in the Oriental churches, his shorter confession of faith, which is found at the end of his Ancoratus (c.120) and seems to have been the baptismal creed of the church of Salamis, agrees almost word for word with the Constantinopolitan formula. He took no part in the synod held at Constantinople in 382; but towards the end of that year we find him associated with St. Jerome, Paulinus of Antioch, and the three legates of that synod, at a council held under bp. Damasus at Rome, which appears to have dealt with the Meletian and Apollinarian controversies. At Rome he was domiciled in the house of the elder Paula, who, under the spiritual guidance of St. Jerome, had dedicated her ample fortune to the poor and sick, and Epiphanius seems to have strengthened her in a resolution to forsake home and children for an ascetic life at a great distance from Rome. Early in 383, when the bishops were returning to their sees, Paula went on pilgrimage to the Holy Land. She stayed with Epiphanius in Salamis about 10 days. Somewhat later St. Jerome also visited Epiphanius, on his way to Bethlehem, bringing a train of monks to Cyprus, to salute |the father of almost the whole episcopate, the last relic of ancient piety.| Thenceforward we find Epiphanius in almost unbroken intercourse with Jerome, in alliance with whom he began his Origenistic controversies. He had indeed already, in his Ancoratus (c.54) and still more in his Panarion, attacked Origen as the ancestor of the Arian heresy.

On hearing that Origenism had appeared in Palestine, he hastened thither, in old age (a.d.394) to crush it. His appearance sufficed to drive the ci-devant Origenist Jerome into the bitterest enmity with his former friends, who refused to repudiate their old attachment. Epiphanius, received with all honours by the bp. of Jerusalem, preached in the most violent manner in the church of the Resurrection. Bp. John, after expressing his disapproval by gestures only for a time, sent his archdeacon to beg him to abstain from speaking further on these topics. The sermon being over, Epiphanius, as he walked by the side of John to the church of the Holy Cross, was pressed upon by the people, as Jerome tells us, from all sides with tokens of veneration. Bp. John, irritated by the sermon, evidently preached against himself, took the next opportunity to preach against certain simple and uneducated persons who represented God to themselves in human form and corporeity. Whereupon Epiphanius rose, and expressing his full concurrence with this, declared that it was quite as necessary to repudiate the heresies of Origen as of the Anthropomorphists. He then hastened to join Jerome at Bethlehem, and required the monks there to renounce at once all church fellowship with the bp. of Jerusalem; but they entreated him to return to John. Epiphanius went back to Jerusalem the same evening, but immediately regretting the step, and without so much as speaking to the bishop, left Jerusalem again at midnight for his old monastery of Eleutheropolis. From there he continued to press the monks of Bethlehem to renounce church fellowship with the Origenist bp. John, and finally availed himself of the occasion provided by a deputation from Bethlehem, to ordain as presbyter Jerome's brother Paulinianus, and impose him on the community, as one who should administer the sacraments among them. This intrusion into the rights of another bishop Epiphanius endeavoured subsequently to excuse in a letter to John. His excuses were far from satisfying the bishop, who reported to other bishops this violation of the canons, and threatened the monks of Bethlehem with ecclesiastical penalties so long as they should recognize Paulinianus or persist in separation. Epiphanius and Jerome, continuing to insist on John publicly purging himself of Origenistic heresy, proceeded to invoke the mediation of Theophilus bp. of Alexandria. Theophilus's legate, a presbyter named Isidore, openly sided with John, and Theophilus himself, who at that time was reckoned an Origenist, designated Epiphanius, in a letter to the bp. of Rome, a heretic and schismatic.

According to another account, Theophilus accused him, as well as John, of Anthropomorphism. Epiphanius certainly received in this controversy little or no support from other bishops. He returned to his diocese, followed by Paulinianus. In this way the chief source of dispute between John and the monks of Jerusalem was removed, and Jerome provisionally renewed communion with the bp. of Jerusalem, as well as with his old friend Rufinus. A few years after the close of this first Origenist controversy, Epiphanius found himself involved in much more unpleasant transactions. Among the monks of Egypt the controversy between Anthropomorphists and Origenists continued to rage. Theophilus of Alexandria having in 398 directed a paschal epistle against the Anthropomorphists, a wild army of monks from the wilderness of Scete rushed into Alexandria, and so frightened the bishop that he thought his life depended on immediate concession. From that time Theophilus appears as a strong opponent of Origenism. In his paschal epistle of 399 he opposes the heresies of Origen in the most violent manner. [[188]Theophilus (9).]

Great joy was expressed by Epiphanius. |Know, my beloved son,| he writes to Jerome, |that Amalek is destroyed to the very root; on the hill of Rephidim has been erected the banner of the cross. God has strengthened the hands of His servant Theophilus as once He did those of Moses.| Epiphanius was soon drawn yet more deeply into these transactions. The bishops began on all sides to speak against the heresies of Origen.

Theophilus having involved himself in a separate conflict of his own with Chrysostom at Constantinople and finding his cause there opposed by the |Long Brothers| from Egypt
[[189]Chrysostom], made strenuous efforts to gain the assistance of Epiphanius against the action of those Origenistic monks, calling upon him to pass judgment upon Origen and his heresy by means of a Cypriote synod. Epiphanius assembled a synod, prohibited the works of Origen, and called on Chrysostom to do the same. He was then moved by Theophilus to appear personally, as an ancient combatant of heresy, at Constantinople. In the winter of 402 Epiphanius set sail, convinced that only his appearance was required to destroy the last remains of the Origenistic poison. Accompanied by several of his clergy, he landed near Constantinople. Chrysostom sent his clergy to give him honourable reception at the gates of the city, with a friendly invitation to take up his abode in the episcopal residence. This was rudely refused by the passionate old man, who declared himself unable to hold church communion with Chrysostom until he had expelled the |Long Brothers,| and had subscribed a condemnation of the writings of Origen. This Chrysostom gently declined, with a reference to the synod about to be holden; whereupon Epiphanius at once assembled the many bishops already gathered at Constantinople, and required them all to subscribe the decrees of his own provincial council against the writings of Origen. Some consented willingly, others refused. Whereupon the opponents of Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to come forward at the service in the church of the Apostles, and openly preach against the Origenists and their protector Chrysostom. Chrysostom warned Epiphanius to abstain, and the latter may by this time have begun to suspect that he was but a tool in the hands of others. On his way to the church he turned back, and soon after, at a meeting with the |Long Brothers,| confessed that he had passed judgment upon them on hearsay only, and, growing weary of the miserable business, determined to return home, but died on board ship in the spring of 403.

His story shews him as an honest, but credulous and narrow-minded, zealot for church orthodoxy. His frequent journeys and extensive reading enabled him to collect a large store of historical information, and this he used with much ingenuity in defending the church orthodoxy of his time. But he exercised really very small influence on dogmatic theology, and his theological polemics were more distinguished by pious zeal than by penetrating intelligence. His refutation of the doctrine of Origen is astoundingly superficial, a few meagre utterances detached from their context being all he gives us, and yet he boasted of having read 6,000 of Origen's works, a much larger number, as Rufinus remarks, than Origen had written.

Those of his time regarded Epiphanius as a saint; wherever he appeared, he was surrounded by admiring disciples, and crowds waited for hours to hear him preach. His biography, written in the name of Polybius, an alleged companion of the saint (printed in the edd. of Petavius and Dindorf), is little more than a collection of legends.

Among his writings the most important are the Ancoratus and Panarion. The Ancoratus comprises in 121 sections a prolix exposition, full of repetitions, of the doctrines of the Trinity, the true humanity of Christ and the resurrection of the body, with a constant polemic against Origen and the heresiarchs of his own time, especially Arians, Sabellians, Pneumatomachi, and Dimoirites (Apollinarians). The whole concludes with the Nicene creed in a twofold form with various additions. This work is chiefly of interest as a witness to the orthodoxy of its time. The Panarion is of much greater importance. It deals in three books with 80 heresies. The catalogue is essentially that already given in his Ancoratus (cc.11 and 12). He begins with heresies existing at the time of our Lord's birth -- Barbarism, Scythianism, Hellenism, Judaism, Samaritanism. The last three are subdivided; Hellenism and Samaritanism into four each, Judaism into seven. Then follow 60 heresies after the birth of Christ, from the Simonians to the Massalians, including some which, as Epiphanius acknowledges, were rather acts of schism than heresies. The extraordinary division of pre-Christian heresies is founded on a passage he often quotes (Col. iii.11). Barbarism lasted from Adam to Noah, Scythianism from Noah to the migration of Peleg and Reu to Scythia. Hellenism, he thinks, sprang up under Serug, understanding thereby idolatry proper. Of the various Greek schools of philosophy, which he regards as particular heresies belonging to Hellenism and offers a complete list of them in the conclusion of his work, he shews himself but poorly informed. His communications concerning the various Jewish sects are for the most part worthless; and what he says of the Nasarenes and Ossenes (Haer. xviii. and xix.) is derived purely from respectable but misunderstood narratives concerning the Ebionites and Elkesaites. His accounts of the
Jewish-Christian and Gnostic sects of the 2nd and 3rd cents. mingle valuable traditions with misunderstandings and fancies of his own. His pious zeal to excel all previous heresiologers by completing the list of heretics led him into strange misunderstandings, adventurous combinations, and arbitrary assertions. He often frames long narratives out of very meagre hints. The strangest phenomena are combined with a total absence of criticism, and cognate matters are arbitrarily separated. Yet he often copies his authorities with slavish dependence, and so enables critical commentators to collect a rich abundance of genuine traditions from his works. For the section from Dositheus to Noetus (Haer. xiii.-lvii.) he used a writing now lost, but of very great importance, which is also used by a contemporary writer, Philastrius of Brixia -- viz. the work of Hippolytus, Against all Heresies. Besides this he used the well-known work of Irenaeus of Lyons. These narratives are often pieced together in very mechanical fashion, resulting in frequent repetitions and contradictory statements.

Besides these two, he had access to many original works of heretics themselves and numerous trustworthy oral traditions. Very valuable are his extracts (Haer. xxxi.) from an old Valentinian work, the Ep. of Ptolemaeus to Flora, which is quoted entire (xxxiii.), and the copious extracts from Marcion's gospel (xlii.). Against the Montanists (xlviii.) he uses an anonymous controversial work of great antiquity, from which Eusebius also (H. E. v.17) gives large extracts; in his article on the Alogi (Haer. li.) he probably uses the work of Porphyry against the Christians. In the section against Origen (xliv.) copious extracts are introduced from Methodius, peri anastaseos. Several notices of heresies existing in Epiphanius's own time are derived from his own observation. The last main division of the Panarion (Haer. lxv.-lxxx.), where he carefully notes the different opinions of Arians, semi-Arians, Photinians, Marcellians, Pneumatomachi, Aerians, Aetians, Apollinarists, or Dimoirites, is one of the most important contemporary authorities for the Trinitarian and Christological controversies since the beginning of the 4th cent. Although a fanatical partisan, and therefore not always to be relied on, Epiphanius speaks almost everywhere from his own knowledge and enhances the value of his work by the literal transcription of important documents. Of far inferior value are his attempted refutations, which are further marred by fanatical abuse, misrepresentation of opinions, and attacks on character. He takes particular pleasure in describing real or alleged licentious excesses on the part of heretics; his refutations proper contain sometimes really successful argument, but are generally weak and unhappy. The work concludes with the section peri pisteos, a glorifying description of the Holy Catholic Church, its faith, its manners, and its ordinances, of great and manifold significance for the history of the church at that time. Each section is preceded by a short summary. An Anakephalaiosis, probably the work of Epiphanius himself (preceded by a short extract from an epistle of Epiphanius to Acacius and Paulus, and followed by an extract from the section setting forth the Catholic faith), almost literally repeats the contents of these summaries. This Anakephalaiosis, a work used by St. Augustine and St. John Damascene, apparently circulated as an independent writing, as did bk. x. of the Philosophumena and the summary added to Hippolytus's suntagma against all heresies and preserved in a Latin translation in the Praescriptiones of Tertullian. Of another more copious epitome -- midway between the brevity of the Anakephalaiosis and the details of the Panarion, a large fragment was pub. by Dindorf from a Paris MS., No.854, in his ed. of Epiphanius, vol. i. pp.339-369 from a transcript made by Fr. Duebners (cf. also the various readings given by Dindorf from a Cod. Cryptoferrar. vol. iii. p.2, praef. pp. iv.-xii.).

The best ed., that of W. Dindorf (Leipz.1859-1862, 5 vols. sm.8vo), contains all the genuine writings (the Ancoratus, Anacephalaeosis, Panarion, and de Mensuris et Ponderibus in the Gk. text, de Gemmis in all three text forms, and the two epistles in Jerome's trans.), and also the spurious homilies, the epitome, and the Vita Epiphanii of Polybius. Of works and treatises concerning Epiphanius may be mentioned the book attributed to the abbé Gervais, L'Histoire et la vie de St.Èpiphane (Paris, 1738); Tillemont, Mémoires, t. x. pp.484 seq., 822 seq.; Fabricius, Bibl. Graec. ed. Harl. viii. pp.261 seq.; Schröckh, Christliche Kirchengeschichte, t. x. pp.3 ff.; Eberhard, Die Betheiligung des Epiphanius an dem Streite über Origenes (Trier, 1859); Lipsius, Zur Quellenkritik des Epiphanios (Wien, 1865).

[R.A.L.]

Epiphanius, patriarch of Constantinople
Epiphanius (17), 16th bp., 5th patriarch of Constantinople, a.d.520-535, succeeding John II.

The eastern empire was now rising to great splendour through the victories of its generals, Belisarius and Narses. Idolatry was universally suppressed, heathen books were burnt, pagan images destroyed, the professors of the old religion imprisoned and flogged. At Constantinople the zeal of Justinian for a church policy was shewn during the patriarchate of Epiphanius by laws (e.g. in 528 and 529) regulating episcopal elections and duties. These enactments, and the passivity of Epiphanius and his clergy, are remarkable proofs of the entire absence as yet of any claims such as the clergy later asserted for exclusively clerical legislation for the spirituality.

The first conspicuous office of Epiphanius was the charge of the catechumens at Constantinople. In 519, the year before his election, he was sent with bp. John and count Licinius to Macedonia to receive the documents |libellos,| or subscriptions of those who wished reunion with the Catholic church, at the request of the apocrisiarius of Dorotheus bp. of Thessalonica. On Feb.25, 520, he was elected bishop by the emperor Justin, with the consent of bishops, monks, and people. He is described in the letter of the synod of Constantinople to pope Hormisdas as |holding the right faith, and maintaining a fatherly care for orphans| (Patr. Lat. lxiii.483). He accepted the conditions of peace between East and West concluded by his predecessor, the patriarch John, with pope Hormisdas; ratifying them at a council at Constantinople, where he accepted also the decrees of Chalcedon. Dioscorus, agent of Hormisdas at Constantinople, writes of his fair promises, but adds, |What he can fulfil we don't know. He has not yet asked us to communion| (ib.482). Four letters remain of Epiphanius to Hormisdas, telling him of his election, sending him his creed, and declaring that he condemned all those whose name the pope had forbidden to be recited in the diptychs. Epiphanius adopts the symbol of Nicaea, the decrees of Ephesus, Constantinople, and Chalcedon, and the letters of pope Leo in defence of the faith. His second letter was accompanied by a chalice of gold surrounded with precious stones, a patina of gold, a chalice of silver, and two veils of silk, which he presented to the Roman church. In order to make the peace general, he advises the pope not to be too rigorous in exacting the extrusion of the names of former bishops from diptychs. His excuse for the bishops of Pontes, Asia, and the East is composed in very beautiful language. The answers of Hormisdas are given in the Acts of the Council of Constantinople held under Mennas. He trusts to the prudence and experience of Epiphanius, and recommends lenity towards the returning, severity to the obdurate. Epiphanius is to complete the reunion himself. (Labbe, Concil. iv.1534, 1537, 1545, 1546, 1555, ed.1671; Patr. Lat. lxiii.497, 507, 523) The severe measures by which Justin was establishing the supremacy of the Catholics in the East were arousing Theodoric, the Arian master of Italy, to retaliation in the West. Pope John I., the successor of Hormisdas, became thoroughly alarmed; and in 525, at the demand of Theodoric, proceeded to Constantinople to obtain the revocation of the edict against the Arians and get their churches restored to them (Marcellin. Chron. ann.525; Labbe, Concil. iv.1600). Great honour was paid to pope John in the eastern capital. The people went out twelve miles to receive him, bearing ceremonial tapers and crosses. The emperor Justin prostrated himself before him, and wished to be crowned by his hand. The patriarch Epiphanius invited him to perform Mass; but the pope, mindful of the traditional policy of encroachment, refused to do so until they had offered him the first seat. With high solemnity he said the office in Latin on Easter Day, communicating with all the bishops of the East except Timothy of Alexandria, the declared enemy of Chalcedon (Baron.525, 8, 10; Pagi, ix.349, 351; AA. SS. May 27; Schröckh, xvi.102, xviii.214-215; Gibbon, iii.473; Milman, Lat. Christ. i.302). In 531 the dispute between Rome and Constantinople was revived by the appeal of Stephen, metropolitan of Larissa, to pope Boniface, against the sentence of Epiphanius. Stephen was eventually deposed, notwithstanding his appeal. On June 5, 535 Epiphanius died, after an episcopate of 14 years and 3 months (Theoph. a.d.529 in Patr. Gk. cviii.477). All that is known of him is to his advantage.

Besides his letters to Hormisdas, we have the sentence of his council against Severus and Peter (Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.783-786). Forty-five canons are attributed to him (Assemani, Bibl. Orient.619).

[W.M.S.]

Epiphanius Scholasticus
Epiphanius (39) Scholasticus, an ecclesiastic c. a.d.510, of whom we know scarcely anything except that he was the friend of Cassiodorus, the celebrated head of the Monasterium Vivariense. He apparently bore the name Scholasticus, not so much because of any devotion to literature or theology, but in the sense that word frequently had in the middle ages, meaning a chaplain, amanuensis, or general assistant of any dignitary of the church (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.). In this relationship, in all probability, Epiphanius stood to his distinguished master, by whom he was summoned to take a part in urging his monks to classical and sacred studies, and especially to the transcription of manuscripts. To Epiphanius was assigned the translation into Latin of the histories of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. Cassiodorus revised the work, corrected faults of style, abridged it, and arranged it into one continuous history of the church. He then published it for the use of the clergy. The book attained a high reputation. It was known as the Tripartite History; and, along with the translation of Eusebius by Rufinus, it became the manual of church history for the clergy of the West for many centuries. The book is generally pub. as if Cassiodorus were its author, under the title of Historiae Ecclesiasticae Tripartitae Epitome.

Epiphanius translated several additional works, such as the commentaries of Didymus upon the Proverbs of Solomon and the seven Catholic Epistles, those of Epiphanius bp. of Cyprus upon the Canticles, and perhaps others, of which one survives, and may be found in Labbe (Conc. t. v.), namely, his Codex Encyclicus, a work to which he was also urged by Cassiodorus. It is a collection of letters addressed by different synods to the emperor Leo in defence of the decrees of the council of Chalcedon against Timotheus Aelurus.

[W.M.]

Eraclius, deacon of the church of Hippo
Eraclius (1) (Heraclius, in the older editions Eradius), deacon of the church of Hippo a.d.425, had inherited considerable property, part of which he spent in raising a |memoria| of the martyr [[192]Stephen]; the rest he offered as a gift to the church. St. Augustine, fearing that the absolute acceptance of such a gift from so young a man might be the subject of future reproval or regret, caused Eraclius first to invest the money in land, which might be given back to him should any unforeseen reason for restitution arise. On becoming one of Augustine's clergy, Eraclius made his poverty complete by setting free a few slaves whom he had retained (Aug. Serm.356, vol. v.1387). In 426 Augustine was summoned to Milevis, to obviate some threatened dissensions. Severus, the late bishop, had designated his successor in his lifetime, but had made his choice known to his clergy only. This caused discontent, and the interference of Augustine was judged necessary to secure the unanimous acceptance of the bishop so chosen. Augustine, then in his 72nd year, was thus reminded of the expedience of securing his own church from similar trouble at his death, and he made choice of Eraclius, then apparently the junior presbyter of the church, to be his coadjutor and designate successor (D. C. A. i.228). Only, though he had himself been ordained bishop in the lifetime of his predecessor, Valerius, he now held that this had been an unconscious violation of the Nicene canon against having two bishops in the same church, and therefore resolved that Eraclius, while discharging all the secular duties of the see, should remain a presbyter until his own death. To obviate future dispute, he assembled his people (Sept.26, 426) to obtain their consent to the arrangement, having the notaries of the church in attendance to draw up regular |gesta| of the proceedings, which those present were asked to subscribe (Ep.213, vol. ii. p.788).

The capture of Hippo by the Vandals prevented the arrangements from taking effect, and Augustine does not appear to have had any successor in his see. Eraclius, in 427, held a private discussion with Maximinus, the Arian bishop, which led to a public disputation between Maximinus and Augustine (Coll. cum Max. viii.650). Two sermons by Eraclius are preserved, the first of which, preached in Augustine's presence, is almost all taken up with compliments and apologies (v.1523 and 72, Append. p.131).

[G.S.]

Ethelbert, king of Kent
Ethelbert (1) I. (properly Aethelberht or Aethelbriht; Bede, Aedilberct), king of Kent, son of Irminric, and great-grandson of Oeric, surnamed Oisc, the son of Hengist, succeeded to the kingdom of the Kentishmen as the heir of the |Aescingas| in 560 (the date, 565, in the Chronicle is inconsistent with Bede's reckoning given below). Some years after his accession he provoked a conflict with Ceawlin, the West Saxon king, and Cutha, his brother, was defeated at Wimbledon with the loss of two ealdormen and driven back into Kent (Sax. Chron. A.658). Ethelbert had already married Bertha or Berhte, daughter of Charibert, king of Paris, on the understanding that she should be free to practise |the rites of her own Christian religion,| under a bishop named Liudhard, chosen by her parents (Bede, i.25). Ethelbert faithfully observed this compact, but shewed no curiosity about his wife's creed. She and her episcopal chaplain worshipped undisturbed in the old Roman-British church of St. Martin, on a hill E. of Ethelbert's city of Canterbury (Bede, i.26). Ethelbert succeeded, on the death of Ceawlin in 593, to that pre-eminence among the Saxon and Anglican kings usually described as the Bretwaldadom (see Freeman, Norm. Conq. i.542). Four years later, in the spring of 597, he was brought face to face with a band of Christian missionaries, headed by Augustine, whom pope Gregory the Great had sent to |bring him the best of all messages, which would ensure to all who received it eternal life and an endless kingdom with the true and living God| (Bede, i.29). Ethelbert had sent word to the foreigners to remain in the Isle of Thanet, where they had landed, and |supplied them with all necessaries until he should see what to do with them.| He soon came into the isle, and sitting down with his |gesiths| or, attendant thanes in the open air (for he feared the effect of spells under a roof) listened attentively to the speech of Augustine. [[193]Augustinus.] Then he spoke in some such words as Bede has rendered immortal. |Your words and your promises are fair; but seeing they are new and uncertain, I cannot give in to them, and leave the rites which I, with the whole race of the Angles, have so long observed. But since you are strangers who have come from afar, and, as I think I have observed, have desired to make us share in what you believe to be true and thoroughly good, we do not mean to hurt you, but rather shall take care to receive you with kindly hospitality, and to afford you what you need for your support; nor do we forbid you to win over to your faith, by preaching, as many as you can.| He gave them a dwelling in Canterbury, N.W. of the present cathedral precinct. They began to make converts, as Bede tells us, through the charm of their preaching, and the still more powerful influence of consistent lives. Shortly afterwards Ethelbert expressed his belief in the truth of those promises which he had described as unheard-of, and was baptized; the time, according to Canterbury tradition, was June 1, the Whitsun-eve of 597 the place, undoubtedly, was St. Martin's. The king proved one of the truest and noblest of royal converts. He built a new palace at Regulbium or Reculver, abandoning his old abode to Augustine, now consecrated as archbishop, and adding the gift of various |needful possessions| (Bede, i.26). He assisted Augustine in converting an old Roman-built church into |the cathedral church of the Holy Saviour,| and also built, |after exhortation,| a monastery outside the E. wall of the city, dedicated to SS. Peter and Paul, but afterwards known as |St Augustine's.| He received by the hands of Mellitus, who, with others, joined the mission in 601, a letter of congratulation and exhortation from pope Gregory; and lent his aid as Bretwalda to arrangements for a conference, near the Bristol Channel, between his archbishop and some bishops of the ancient British church. Among the many |good services which he rendered to his people,| Bede reckons those |dooms| or decrees which, |after the example of the Romans, he framed with the consent of his wise men,| and among which he first of all set down what satisfaction (bôt) was to be made by any one who robbed the church, the bishop, or the clergy. For he was |minded to afford his protection to those whose doctrine he had received| (Bede, ii.5). For these dooms, 90 in number, extant in the Textus Roffensis, see Thorpe's Ancient Laws and Institutes of England, p.1. Ethelbert's nephew Sabert, the son of his sister Ricula, held the dependent kingship of the East Saxons, and embraced the faith under the persuasion of his uncle and overlord, who built a church of St. Paul in London for Mellitus as bishop of that kingdom. He also built at |Hrof's Castle,| i.e. Rochester, a church of St. Andrew for a bishop named Justus: |gave many gifts to both prelates, and added lands and possessions for the use of those who were with them.| It was doubtless in Ethelbert's reign and under his influence that Redwald, king of the East Angles, while visiting Kent, received baptism, although, as his after-conduct shewed, his convictions were not deep (Bede, ii.19). After Bertha's death, Ethelbert married a young wife whose name is unknown. His last days must have been saddened by anxiety as to the future reign of his son Eadbald, who refused to receive the faith of Christ. Ethelbert died, after what Bede describes as a most glorious reign of 56 years, on Feb.24, a.d.616, and was buried beside his first wife in the |porticus| or transept of St. Martin, within the church of SS. Peter and Paul, leaving behind a memory held in grateful reverence as that of the first English Christian king (Hardy, Cat. Mat. i.176, 214-216, 259). Cf. The Mission of St. Augustine, according to the Original Documents, by A. Jason, D.D. (Camb.1897).

[W.B.]

Etheria
Etheria. [[194]Sylvia.]

Eucherius, St., bp. of Lyons
Eucherius (1), St., bp. of Lyons, prob. born late in 4th cent.; except perhaps St. Irenaeus the most distinguished occupant of that see.

Authorities. -- Sidonius Apollinaris, Ep. lib. iii.8.; St. Isidorus, de Ecclesiasticis Scriptoribus, cap. xv.; Gennadius, de Illustribus Ecclesiae Scriptorabus, cap. lxiii.; Cassianus, some of whose Collationes (xi.-xvii.) are addressed to Eucherius and Honoratus. [[195]Cassianus (11).]

Born in a high social position, he married Galla, a lady of his own station. Their two sons, Salonius and Veranius, received an ecclesiastical education in the monastery of Lerinum under St. Honoratus and Salvanius; and both, appear, from the title of the commentary on Kings, falsely ascribed to Eucherius, to have become bishops during the lifetime of their father.

The civic duties of Eucherius (whatever they were) appear to have been discharged conscientiously and vigorously. Sidonius Apollinaris is loud in the praise of his friend as a layman, and compares him (Ep. viii.) to the Bruti and Torquati of old. But the world, then in a very turbulent and unsettled condition, palled upon Eucherius, and while still in the vigour of life he sought a retreat from its cares and temptations on the island of Lerinum, the smaller of the two isles now known as the Lérins, off Antibes; and subsequently on the larger one of Lero, now called Sainte Marguerite. Here he pursued an ascetic life of study and worship, devoting himself also to the education of his children. During this period he composed the two undoubtedly genuine works which we possess.

Intercourse, both personal and by correspondence, with eminent ecclesiastics tended to make widely known his deserved reputation for sanctity and for a varied and considerable learning, and c.434 the church of Lyons unanimously, unsought, elected him bishop. He brought to the discharge of this office the influence and experience acquired in lay government, as well as the spiritual training and erudition won in his retirement. He was bishop some 16 years, the remainder of his life, and Claudianus Mamertus speaks of him as |magnorum sui saeculi pontificum longe maximus.| He was succeeded by his son Veranius, while Geneva became the see of his other son Salonius.

Works. -- 1. Epistola, seu Libellus, de laude Eremi. This short treatise, addressed to St. Hilary of Arles, is assigned, with probability, to a.d.428. The Collationes of Cassian, composed at the request of Eucherius, had given so vivid a picture of the hermits of the Thebaid as to call forth this epistle. The author calls attention to the blessings recorded in Holy Scripture as connected with lonely spots (e.g. the law was given in the wilderness and the chosen race fed with bread from heaven) and to the sanction given to retirement by the examples of Moses, Elijah, St. John Baptist, and our Lord Himself. In reference to this last he exclaims, |O laus magna deserti, ut diabolus, qui vicerat in Paradiso, in Eremo vinceretur|; and notices the withdrawal of Christ to solitude for prayer, and the fact of the Transfiguration taking place on a mountain.

2. Epistola Paraenetica ad Valerianum cognatum. |De contemptu mundi et saecularis philosophiae.| Its date is probably c. a.d.432. Eucherius evidently desires his highly-placed and wealthy kinsman to follow him in retirement from the world. Valerian is reminded of the many saintly doctors of the church who had once occupied an exalted secular position; e.g. Clement of Rome, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Gregory Nazianzen, Basil, Paulinus of Nola, Ambrose, etc. The Latin of this epistle won the approbation of Erasmus, who published an edition, accompanied by scholia, at Basle, a.d.1520.

3. Liber formularum spiritalis intelligentiae [al. de formâ spiritalis intellectûs] ad Veranium filium. This is a defence of the lawfulness of the allegorical sense of Scripture, pleading the testimony of Scripture itself; e.g. Ps. lxxvii. [lxxviii. A.V.] 2, and the use of such phrases as |the hand of God,| |the eyes of the Lord,| etc., which cannot be taken ad literam. It displays a very extensive acquaintance with the Bible and anticipates many favourite usages of mediaeval mystics and hymnwriters; such as the term anagoge (anagoge) for the application of Scripture to the heavenly Jerusalem, identification of the digitus Dei with the Holy Spirit (St. Luke xi.20, with St. Matt. xii.28) and the like.

4. Instructionum Libri Duo ad Salonium filium. Of this treatise, the former book discusses difficulties in the O. and N.T., such as the scriptural evidence for the doctrine of the Holy Trinity; the permission of polygamy to the patriarchs; the existence of evil, which (with many other divines) he makes simply the privation of good, etc. The second book deals with Hebrew names, but does not display a very profound acquaintance with Hebrew. Eucherius quotes with much respect the version of the O.T. by Aquila.

There are also Homilies by him, and some other works are ascribed to him of doubtful authenticity.

Editions. -- There is no complete edition of the writings of Eucherius. For this art. the Bibliotheca Patrum Maxima (Lugduni), a.d.1677 (t. vi. p.822), has been used. Cf. A. Gouillond, St. Eucher. Lérins et l'Eglise de Lyon au V^ e Siècle (Lyons, 1881).

[J.G.C.]

Euchites
Euchites. Doctrines and Practices. -- At the beginning of the last quarter of the 4th cent. or a little earlier, fanatics made their appearance in Syria, whose manner of life was said to have been introduced from Mesopotamia, and who were known by the Syriac name of Messalians or Massalians (mtslyn), praying people. tsl' oravit is found in the Chaldee (Dan. vi.11; Ezra vi.10). Epiphanius, whose account of them is the last article (80) of his work on heresies, translates the name (euchomenoi), but in the next generation the Messalians had obtained a technical name in Greek also, and were known as Euchites (euchetai or euchitai). They professed to give themselves entirely to prayer, refusing to work and living by begging; thus differing from the Christian monks, who supported themselves by their labour. They were of both sexes, went about together, and in summer weather slept in the streets promiscuously, as persons who had renounced the world and had no possession or habitation of their own. Epiphanius dates the commencement of this sect from the reign of Constantius (d. a.d.361). Theodoret (H. E. iv.11; Haer. Fab. iv.10; Rel. Hist. iii., Vit. Marcian. vol. iii.1146) dates its beginning a few years later under Valentinian. There seems no foundation for the charge that the Euchites were derived from the Manichees. Epiphanius connects them with heathen devotees whom he calls Euphemites, and who it seems had also been known as Messalians. The Euchites appear never to have made any entrance into the West, but in the East, though probably at no time very numerous, they are heard of for centuries; and when the Bogomiles of the 12th cent. appeared, the name Messalian still survived, and the new heretics were accounted descendants of the ancient sect.

In the time of Epiphanius the Messalians scarcely were a sect, having no settled system nor recognized leader; and Epiphanius imputes to them no error of doctrine, but only criticizes their manner of life.

Two accounts of Euchite doctrine are apparently of greater antiquity than the authors who preserve them. One is given by Timotheus (de Receptione Haer. in Cotelier's Mon. Ecc. Gr. iii.400). This writer was a presbyter of Constantinople in the 6th cent. His coincidences with Theodoret are too numerous to be well explained except on the supposition of common sources. These sources probably were the Acts of the councils of Antioch and Side, which contained summaries of Messalian doctrine. Theodoret may possibly also have used a Messalian book called Asceticus, the doctrines of which, Photius tells us, had been exposed and anathematized at the council of Ephesus in 431. Probably that book furnished the |heads of the impious doctrine of the Messalians taken from their own book| given by Joannes Damascenus (de Haer. ap. Cotelier, Mon. Ecc. Gr. i.302, and Opp. Le Quien, i.95), but which would seem also (see Wolf, Hist. Bogomil. p.11) to have been separately preserved in two MSS. at Leipzig (Acta Eruditorum, 1696, p.299; 1699, p.157; and in the Bodleian, Cod. Barocc.185).

They held that in consequence of Adam's sin every one had from his birth a demon, substantially united to his soul, which incited him to sin, and which baptism was ineffectual to expel. Dealing only with past sin, baptism did but shear off the surface growth, and did not touch the root of the evil. The true remedy was intense, concentrated prayer, continued till it produced a state from which all affections and volitions were banished (apatheia). In this the soul felt as sensible a consciousness of union with its heavenly bridegroom as an earthly bride in the embraces of her husband. Then the demon went out in the spittle or in the mucus of the nose, or was seen to depart in smoke or in the form of a serpent, and there was in like manner sensible evidence of the entrance of the Holy Spirit. St. Augustine (Haer.57), who had some source of information independent of Epiphanius, ascribes to them a fancy that the Holy Spirit might be seen to enter in the appearance of innocuous fire, and the demon to pass out of the man's mouth in the form of a sow with her farrow. Possibly language intended by them metaphorically was misunderstood; for they described the soul of him who had not Christ in him as the abode of serpents and venomous beasts. They further thought that he who had arrived at the passionless state could see the Holy Trinity with his bodily eyes; that the three hypostases of the Trinity coalesced into one, which united itself with worthy souls. This doctrine no doubt furnishes the key to the account given by Epiphanius of the effacement of the sense of distinct personality in members of this sect. They held the possibility in the passionless state of a perfection in which sin was impossible; such a man needed neither instruction for his soul nor fasting to discipline his body, for delicate food and luxurious living could stir no evil desire in him. It is probably a misconception to suppose that they claimed that he could be guilty of licentious conduct without falling from perfection. The soul of him who was |spiritual,| as they boasted themselves to be, was changed into the divine nature; he could see things invisible to ordinary men; and so some of them used to dance by way of trampling on the demons which they saw, a practice from which they were called Choreutae. The things they saw in their dreams they took for realities, and boasted that they then acquired a knowledge of future events, could see the condition of departed souls, and could read men's hearts. Both sexes might partake of this divine illumination, and they had female teachers, whom they honoured more than the clergy. The use of the Lord's Supper they regarded as a thing indifferent: it could neither benefit the worthy nor harm the unworthy receiver; but there was no reason for separating from the church by refusing it. They disparaged all the ordinary forms of Christian charity as compared with the merit of bestowing alms on one of their members. They had speculations about our Lord's humanity, of which the most intelligible is that the body which He assumed had been full of demons which it was necessary for Him to expel.

History. -- The first whom we read of as a leader of the sect is Adelphius; hence |Adelphians| was one of their many names. He was a layman of Mesopotamia. Epiphanius speaks of them in his time as having no recognized leader. Theodoret tells that Flavian bp. of Antioch sent monks to bring the Messalian teachers at Edessa to Antioch. They denied their doctrines, and charged their accusers with calumny. Flavian then used an artifice afterwards repeated by Alexius Comnenus in the case of the Bogomiles. He affected to take their part, treated the aged Adelphius with great respect, and led him to believe that he would find in an aged bishop one able to understand and sympathize with views which younger men rejected only from want of experience. Adelphius, having been thus enticed into a full disclosure of his sentiments, was rebuked in the words addressed by Daniel to the wicked elder (Susanna, 52) and punished as convicted out of his own mouth. He and his party were beaten, excommunicated, and banished, and were not allowed, as they wished, the alternative of recantation, no confidence being felt in their sincerity, especially as they were found communicating in friendly terms with Messalians whom they had anathematized. Probably it was on this occasion that Flavian held a synod against them (Photius, 52), attended by three other bishops (Bizus of Seleucia, a Mesopotamian bishop, Maruthas, described by Photius as bp. of the Supharenians, and Samus) and by about 30 clergy. With Adelphius there were condemned two persons named Sabas, one of them a monk and a eunuch, Eustathius of Edessa, Dadoes, Hermas, Symeon, and others. Flavian informed the bishops of Edessa and neighbourhood what had been done, and received an approving reply. The Messalians banished from Syria went to Pamphylia, and there met new antagonists. They were also condemned by a council of 25 bishops held at Side and presided over by Amphilochius of Iconium, which sent a synodical letter to Flavian, informing him of their proceedings. In their Acts Amphilochius gave a full statement of the Messalian tenets expressed in their own words. Photius represents the synod at Antioch just mentioned as having been called in consequence of the synodical letter from Side, but this is more than doubtful, though Theodoret also, in his Eccl. Hist., mentions the proceedings in Pamphylia before mentioning those which resulted in the banishment of the Messalians to Pamphylia. We cannot fix the year of these proceedings, but c.390 will probably not be far wrong. Measures were taken against the Messalians in Armenia also. Letoius bp. of Melitene obtained information from Flavian as to the proceedings in Antioch. Finding some monasteries in his diocese infected by this heresy, he set fire to them, and hunted the wolves from his sheepfold. A less zealous Armenian bishop was rebuked by Flavian for favour shewn to these heretics. In Pamphylia the contest lasted for several years. The orthodox leaders were another Amphilochius, bp. of Side, and Verinianus bp. of Perga, who were stimulated by energetic letters from Atticus bp. of Constantinople, and later, in a.d.426, from the synod held for the consecration of Sisinnius, the successor of Atticus, in which Theodotus of Antioch and a bishop named Neon are mentioned by Photius as taking active parts. Messalianism had probably at that time given some trouble in Constantinople itself. Nilus (de Vol. Paup. ad Magnam, 21) couples with Adelphius of Mesopotamia, Alexander, who polluted Constantinople with like teaching, and against whom he contends that their idleness, instead of aiding devotion, gave scope to evil thoughts and passions and was inimical to the true spirit of prayer. Tillemont has conjectured that this was the Alexander who about this time founded the order of the Acoimetae (see D. C. A. s.v.), but the identification is far from certain. There is no evidence that the latter was a heretic save that his name has not been honoured with the prefix of saint; and his institution would scarcely have met with the success it did if it could have been represented as devised by a notorious Messalian to carry out the notions of his sect as to the duty of incessant prayer.

Between the accession of Sisinnius and the council of Ephesus in 431, John of Antioch wrote to Nestorius about the Messalians, and Theodosius legislated against them (xvi. Cod. Theod. de Haer. vol. vi. p.187). At Ephesus Valerian of Iconium, and Amphilochius of Side, in the name of the bps. of Lycaonia and Pamphylia, obtained from the council a confirmation of the decrees made against the Euchites at Constantinople in 426 and the anathematization of the Messalian book, Asceticus, passages from which Valerian laid before the synod (Mansi, iv.1477). Fabricius names Agapius, and Walch Adelphius, as the author of this book, but the writer is really unknown. These proceedings at Ephesus were unknown to Gregory the Great (Ep. vi.14, ad Narsem, vol. vii. p.361), but are mentioned by Photius, and the decree was read at the second council of Nicaea (Mansi, xii.1025). The cause of Gregory's oversight may have been that his correspondent cited to him as Ephesine the Acts of the council of Antioch. We learn from the Ephesine decree that Messalianism had also been condemned at Alexandria, and Timotheus mentions Cyril as an antagonist of these heretics. In the Ep. ad Calosyrium (prefixed to the tract adv. Anthropomorph. vii.363) Cyril rebukes certain monks who made piety a cloak for laziness, but there is no evidence that they were Euchites. The articles of the Asceticus were the subject of 24 anathemas by Archelaus (bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia some time between the two Ephesine synods of 431 and 449), and of two letters by Heracleidas of Nyssa (c.440). The next Euchite leader of whom we read is Lampetius, after whom his followers were called Lampetians, and who is said to have been the first of the sect to attain the dignity of priesthood. He had been ordained by Alypius, bp. of Caesarea (Cappadocia) in 458. He was accused to Alypius by the presbyter Gerontius, superior of the monks at Glitis, of undue familiarity with women, unseemly language, scoffing at those who took part in the musical services of the church as being still under the law when they ought to make melody only in their hearts, and of other Euchite doctrines and practices. The examination of the charges was delegated by Alypius to Hormisdas bp. of Comana, and Lampetius was degraded from the priesthood. He wrote a work called the Testament, answered by the Monophysite Severus, afterwards bp. of Antioch. A fragment of this answer is preserved in a catena belonging to New College, Oxford (Wolf, Anecdota Graeca, iii.182). It insists on the duty of praising God both with heart and voice. The same catena contains an extract from another work of Severus against the Euchites, an epistle to a bp. Solon. Photius tells that in Rhinocorura two persons named Alpheus, one of them a bishop, defended the orthodoxy of Lampetius, and were in consequence deposed. He learned this from a letter written by Ptolemy, another bishop of the same district, to Timotheus of Alexandria. There have been at Alexandria several bishops of that name, but probably the Timotheus intended is the one contemporary with Lampetius (460-482).

The next Messalian leader of whom we read (in Timotheus) is Marcian, a money-changer, who lived in the middle of the 6th cent., and from whom these sectaries came to be called Marcianists. The correspondence of Gregory the Great, already referred to, arose out of the condemnation under this name, unknown in the West, in 595, of one John, a presbyter of Chalcedon. He appealed to the pope, who pronounced him orthodox, complaining that he had not even been able to make out from his accusers what the heresy of Marcianism was. In the 7th cent. Maximus, in his scholia on the Pseudo-Dionysius (II.88), charges those whom he calls indifferently Lampetians, Messalians, Adelphians, or Marcianists, with giving but three years to ascetic life and the rest of their life to all manner of debauchery.

We hear no more of the Messalians till the Bogomile heresy arose in the 12th cent.

Of modern writers, the most useful are Tillemont, viii.530; Walch, Hist. der Ketz. iii.418; and Neander, Ch. Hist. iii.323.

[G.S.]

Eudoxius, bishop of Constantinople
Eudoxius (2), 8th bp. of Constantinople (360-370), previously bp. of Germanicia and of Antioch, one of the most influential Arians. Between 324 and 331 St. Eustathius was bp. of Antioch. Eudoxius came to him seeking holy orders. Eustathius found his doctrine unsound and refused him. But when Eustathius was deposed, the Arians or Eusebians had everything their own way, and admitted Eudoxius to orders and made him bp. of Germanicia, on the confines of Syria, Cilicia, and Cappadocia. This bishopric he held at least 17 years, the dark period of the principal intrigues against Athanasius, and of the reigns of the sons of Constantine. In 341 was held, at Antioch, the council of the Dedication or Encaenia, under Placillus. Eudoxius of Germanicia attended. He was an Arian pure and simple, a disciple of Aetius, a friend of Eunomius. The council produced four creeds, in which the Eusebian party succeeded in making their doctrine as plausible as might be, and the second of these became known as the |Creed of the Dedication.| Athanasius says that Eudoxius was sent with Martyrius and Macedonius to take the new creed of Antioch to Italy. This new creed may, however, have been the Macrostich, or Long Formula, drawn up at a later council of Antioch. In 343 or 347 the rival councils of Sardica and Philippopolis were held. At the latter was drawn up a creed more Arian than those of Antioch, and it was signed by Eudoxius. At the end of 347 Eudoxius was in attendance on the emperor in the West, when news came of the death of Leontius of Antioch. Excusing himself on the plea that the affairs of Germanicia required his presence, he hastened to Antioch, and, representing himself as nominated by the emperor, got himself made bishop, and sent Asphalus, a presbyter of Antioch, to make the best of the case at court. Constantius wrote to the church of Antioch: |Eudoxius went to seek you without my sending him. . . . To what restraint will men be amenable, who impudently pass from city to city, seeking with a most unlawful appetite every occasion to enrich themselves?| Meanwhile the new prelate was preaching open Arianism and persecuting the orthodox. In the first year of his episcopate at Antioch he held a council, which received the creed of Sirmium. An idea may be formed of his sermons from three different sources. Hilary of Poictiers, then in the East, heard Eudoxius in his cathedral, and wished his ears had been deaf, so horribly blasphemous was the language. Theodoret and Epiphanius report him as boasting that he had the same knowledge about God as God had about Himself.

A council was held at Seleucia in Sept.359, the orthodox forming a very small minority. The majority signed the |Creed of the Dedication|; Eudoxius who was present, was deposed by the less heretical party, and appears to have sought the shelter of the court at Constantinople. Here, by the aid of the Acacians, he secured his appointment as patriarch on the deposition of Macedonius, and on Jan.27, 360, took possession of his throne in the presence of 72 bishops. On Feb.15 the great church of Constantinople, St. Sophia, begun in 342 by the emperor Constantius, was dedicated. Eudoxius, mounting his episcopal throne before the expectant multitude of courtiers, ecclesiastics, and citizens, began with the words: |The Father is asebes, the Son is eusebes.| A great tumult of indignation arose on all sides in St. Sophia. The orator, unabashed, explained: |The Father is asebes because He honours nobody; the Son is eusebes because He honours the Father.| The new cathedral echoed with peals of uncontrollable laughter. Thus, says Socrates (ii.43), these heresiarchs tore the church to pieces by their captious subtilties.

Eudoxius consecrated his friend Eunomius to the see of Cyzicus; but such complaints were brought to the emperor that he ordered Eudoxius to depose him. Eudoxius, terrified by menaces, persuaded him quietly to retire.

In 365 an attack was made on Eudoxius by the semi-Arians, now called Macedonians. Holding a meeting at Lampsacus, they signed the |Creed of the Dedication,| cited Eudoxius and his party before them, and, as they did not come, sentenced them to deprivation; but Valens refused to confirm the proceedings. In 367 Valens, as he was setting out for the Gothic war, was induced by his wife to receive baptism from Eudoxius. In the same year he issued, doubtless under the advice of Eudoxius, an order that such bishops as had been banished by Constantius and had returned under Julian should again be exiled.

The years during which Eudoxius and Valens acted together were troubled by portents, which many attributed to the anger of Heaven at the cruelty of Valens in banishing bishops who would not admit Eudoxius to their communion. Eudoxius died in 370. He well deserves the character given him by Baronius, |the worst of all the Arians.| Soz. H. E. iv.26; Socr. H. E. ii.19, 37, 40, 43; Theoph. Chronogr. § 38; Niceph. Callist. H. E. xi.4; Theod. H. E. ii.25; Haer. Fab. iv.3; Epiph. de Haeres. lxxiii.2; Athan. ad Solit. in Patr. Gk. xxvi.572, 219, 589, 274, 580, 713, 601; Hilarius, de Synod., Patr. Lat. x.471, etc.; Liber contr. Const. Imp. §§ 665, 680, 573, etc.

[W.M.S.]

Eulalius, an antipope
Eulalius (1), an antipope, elected and ordained as bp. of Rome after the death of Zosimus at the close of 418, in opposition to Boniface I., who was finally established in the see, Eulalius being expelled from Rome by the emperor Honorius in April 419. The official letters which passed have been preserved in the Vatican, and are quoted at length by Baronius (A. E. ann.418, lxxix.419, ii.-xxxii.). They throw light on the conflicts attending the election of bishops, and on the powers exercised by the emperors in connexion therewith. First we have a letter (Dec.29, 418) to Honorius at Ravenna from Symmachus the Praefectus Urbis, stating that, after he had warned the people to proceed to a new election without disturbance, Eulalius the archdeacon had been taken to the Lateran church by the clergy and people, duly elected, and ordained; while certain presbyters, accompanied by a crowd, had gone with Bonifacius, a presbyter, to the church of Theodora, and, though warned to do nothing rashly, had ordained him in the church of St. Marcellus, and thence took him to St. Peter's basilica. He requests the instructions of the emperor, with whom, he says, it rests to give judgment in such a case. Honorius replies (Jan.3, 419) by ordering Boniface to be expelled from the city, and the authors of the sedition in his favour punished, Eulalius having been duly appointed according to the rule of Catholic discipline (competens numerus ordinantium, solemnitas temporis, locique qualitas) and the rival election being deficient in these respects. Symmachus replies (Jan.8) that he has carried out the emperor's order, not without resistance on the part of Boniface, who had caused a messenger sent to forbid a procession to be beaten by the people; had held the procession; and had forcibly entered the city, but had been expelled by an opposing mob; while Eulalius had celebrated service in the basilica of St. Peter amid the acclamations of almost the whole city.

Meantime the presbyters who supported Boniface had sent a different account. They had been unable, they say, to assemble in the customary place, the Lateran church, because of its being occupied by Eulalius with a very small number of presbyters and an excited mob; they were the great majority of the clergy, supported by the better part of the laity; amid general acclamation they had elected Boniface, in whose ordination 70 priests and 9 bishops of divers provinces had concurred; whereas the bp. of Ostia, a sick old man almost at the point of death, had been brought against his will to assist in the ordination of Boniface's rival.

Having received this counter-statement, Honorius writes to Symmachus (Jan.15), revoking his former edict; commanding the attendance at Ravenna (Feb.8) of Boniface and Eulalius, with their respective supporters, before a synod.

The documents shew that the members of this synod were divided, and unable to come to a decision before Easter (Mar.30), when custom required a bishop to celebrate in Rome. Honorius therefore decided to refer the case after Easter to a fuller synod, and commissioned Achilleus bp. of Spoleto to celebrate Easter in Rome, forbidding both claimants to be present there. He exacts obedience in a high tone of authority, and threatens with summary punishment all disturbers of the peace. The synod was to be held at Spoletum on June 13. Honorius sent private letters to several of the more important prelates, e.g. Paulinus of Nola, Augustine, and Aurelius of Carthage, and circular letters to the bishops of Africa and Gaul. The proposed assembly, however, never took place. Eulalius and his party, disregarding the imperial orders, entered Rome at mid-day, Mar.18, and came into violent collision with Achilleus and his supporters, Symmachus and the Vicarius Urbis narrowly escaping with their lives. Thereupon the emperor ordered (Mar.25) Eulalius to be immediately expelled from the city. Eulalius refused to comply, and took violent possession of the Lateran church, but was eventually dislodged thence and expelled from Rome, an imperial edict (Apr.3) excluding him from the see and confirming Boniface as bp. of Rome. The latter was welcomed as bishop by the whole population with joy and gratitude to the emperor.

Eulalius retired to Antium, near Rome, expecting the death of Boniface, who fell sick after his accession, but this hope failing, he made no further attempt to recover the see, though invited to do so by his partisans in Rome on the death of Boniface in 423. According to the Liber Pontificalis, he afterwards became bp. of Nepete.

From this account, extracted from contemporary documents, the following facts are evident. First, that with the ancient custom of election of a new bishop by the clergy, with the assent of the laity, and confirmation by provincial bishops, there was no desire on the part of the civil power to interfere. Secondly, that elections had come to be conducted in an irregular and tumultuous manner, giving rise [[197]Damasus] to violent conflicts, with bloodshed even in the churches. Thirdly, that it was the necessity of restoring order, and adjudicating between rival claims, that led to the interposition of the emperor. Fourthly, that in this case the emperor did not insist on a right to decide on the validity of either election without first submitting the question to an episcopal synod. Fifthly, eventually, serious provocation being given, he settled the question on his own authority, without the sanction of a synod or regard to the canonicity of the original election. A statement in the Liber Pontificalis that Eulalius was deposed by a synod of 252 bishops is inconsistent with the contemporary evidence given above, and, as such, Baronius rejects it.

[J.B -- Y.]

Eulogius, bp. of Edessa
Eulogius (4), bp. of Edessa. When a presbyter there he suffered in the persecution by Valens. Barses the bishop having been deposed and exiled, the orthodox refused to communicate with an Arian prelate, intruded into the see. Modestus the prefect commanded the leading ecclesiastics to obey the emperor and communicate with the new prelate. The whole body, led by Eulogius, offered so firm a resistance that Modestus sentenced them, 80 in number, to transportation to Thrace. The confessors received so much honour there that Valens relegated them, two and two, to distant localities, Eulogius with a presbyter Protogenes being sent to Antinous in the Thebaid. Though there was a Catholic bishop here the population was almost entirely pagan, and the two presbyters commenced missionary work among them. On the cessation of the persecution Eulogius and Protogenes returned to Edessa, where, Barses being dead, Eulogius was consecrated bishop by Eusebius of Samosata (Theod. H. E. iv.18, v.4). He attended the councils held at Rome in 369 (Labbe, ii.894), Antioch in 379, and Constantinople in 381 (ib.955). See Soz. vi.34; and Migne's note 61, Patr. Gk. lxvii.1394.

[E.V.]

Eunomius, bp. of Cyzicus
Eunomius (3) of Cappadocia, bp. of Cyzicus (360-364) after the expulsion of Eleusius. As the pupil and secretary of Aetius, he formulated his master's system with a preciseness which stamped the name of Eunomians instead of that of Aetians on the Anomoean heretics. He was distinguished by |a faculty of subtle disputation and hard mechanical reasoning| (Newman, Arians, c. iv. § 4), which subjected the Christian verities to strict logical processes, and rejected every doctrine that could not be shewn to be consistent with human reason. Neander further describes him as the decided enemy of asceticism, and of the growing disposition to worship saints and relics -- in fact, the |Rationalist| of the 4th cent. (Ch. Hist. iv. p.78, Clark's trans.).

The name of his birthplace is given as Dacora by Sozomen and Philostorgius, and as Oltiseris by Gregory Nyssen, who correctly places it on the confines of Cappadocia and Galatia (Soz. H. E. vii.17; Philost. H. E. x.6, xi.5). Eunomius came of an honest, industrious stock. His father, an unpretending, hard-working man, supported his family by the produce of his land and by teaching a few neighbours' children in the winter evenings (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. p.291). Eunomius inherited his father's independent spirit. He learnt shorthand, and became amanuensis to a kinsman and tutor to his children. The country becoming distasteful to him, he went to Constantinople, hoping to study rhetoric. Gregory Nyssen, who endeavours to blacken his character as much as possible, hints that his life there was not very reputable, but specifies no charges. It was reported that he worked as a tailor, making clothes and girdles. Before very long he returned to Cappadocia.

The fame of Aetius, then teaching at Alexandria, reaching Eunomius, he proceeded thither c.356, and placed himself under his instruction, acting also as his amanuensis (Socr. H. E. ii.35, iv.7; Soz. H. E. vi.27; Philost. H. E. iii.20; Greg. Nys. in Eunom. i. p.290). He accompanied Aetius to Antioch at the beginning of 358, to attend the Arian council summoned by Eudoxius, who had through court favour succeeded to the see of Antioch.

The bold front displayed by the Arians at this council, and the favour shewn to the flagrant blasphemies of Aetius and Eunomius, who did not scruple to assert the absolute unlikeness (anomoion) of the Son to the Father, excited the strong opposition of the semi-Arian party, of which George of Laodicea, Basil of Ancyra, and Macedonius of Constantinople, were the highly respectable leaders. Under colour of the dedication of a church, a council was speedily held by them at Ancyra at which the Anomoean doctrines and their authors were condemned. A synodical letter was sent to the emperor denouncing the teaching of Eunomius and his master and charging the latter with being privy to the conspiracy of Gallus (Philost. H. E. iv.8). These proceedings struck dismay into the Arian clique at Antioch, and Eunomius, now a deacon, was sent to Constantinople as their advocate. But, apprehended in Asia Minor by some imperial officers, he was banished by the emperor's orders to Midaeus or Migde in Phrygia; Aetius to Pepuza. Eudoxius found it prudent to retire to his native Armenia till the storm had blown over (Greg. Nys. ib. p.291), but found means to reinstate himself in the emperor's favour, and at the close of 359 was chosen successor of Macedonius in the imperial see. Constantius had the utmost abhorrence of the Anomoeans and their teaching. Aetius was therefore sacrificed by the Arians as a scapegoat, while Eunomius was persuaded to separate himself reluctantly from his old teacher and conceal his heterodoxy, that he might secure a position of influence from which to secretly disseminate his views. Eudoxius procured for him from the emperor the bishopric of Cyzicus, vacant by the deposition of the semi-Arian Eleusius; but after a while, weary of dissimulation, he began to propound his doctrines, at first privately, and then in public assemblies. Complaints of his heterodoxy were laid before Eudoxius, who, forced by Constantius, summoned Eunomius before a council of bishops at Constantinople, but sent him a secret message counselling flight. Eunomius, not appearing, was condemned in his absence, deposed, and banished (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv.3; H. E. ii.29; Philost. H. E. vi.1). On this he broke altogether with his former associates, and headed a party of his own, called after him Eunomians, professing the extreme Anomoean doctrines of the general comprehensibleness of the Divine Essence, and the absolute unlikeness of the Son to the Father. The accession of Julian in 361 recalled Eunomius and Aetius among the other bishops banished by Constantius. They both settled in Constantinople during the reigns of Julian and his successor Jovian (Philost. H. E. vi.7, vii.6). The growing popularity of Eunomianism at Constantinople caused jealousy in Eudoxius, who took advantage of the commotions caused by the rebellion of Procopius on the accession of Valens in 364 to expel Eunomius and Aetius from the city. Eunomius retired to his country house near Chalcedon. Procopius having also taken refuge there in Eunomius's absence, Eunomius was accused of favouring his designs, and was in danger of being capitally condemned. Sentence of banishment to Mauritania was actually passed upon him, a.d.367. But on his way thither, passing through Mursa, the Arian bishop Valens, by personal application to the emperor Valens, obtained the repeal of his sentence (ib. iv.4-8). He was, the same year, again sentenced to banishment by Modestus, the prefect of the Praetorian guards, as a disturber of the public peace (ib. ix.11). But he was again at Constantinople, or at least at Chalcedon, early in the reign of Theodosius, a.d.379, to whom in 383 he, with other bishops, presented a confession of faith which is still extant. The next year Theodosius, finding some officers of the court infected with Eunomian views, expelled them from the palace, and having seized Eunomius at Chalcedon, banished him to Halmyris in Moesia, on the Danube. Halmyris being captured by the Goths, who had crossed the frozen river, Eunomius was transported to Caesarea in Cappadocia. The fact that he had attacked their late venerated bishop, Basil the Great, in his writings, made him so unpopular there that his life was hardly safe. He was therefore permitted to retire to his paternal estate at Dacora, where he died in extreme old age soon after a.d..392, when, according to Jerome (Vir. Illust. c.120), he was still living, and writing much against the church. His body was buried there, but transferred to Tyana, by order of Eutropius, c.396, and there carefully guarded by the monks -- to prevent its being carried by his adherents to Constantinople and buried beside his master Aetius, to whom he had himself given a splendid funeral (Soz. H. E. vii.17; Philost. H. E. ix.6, xi.5).

Eunomianism, a cold, logical system, lacked elements of vitality, and notwithstanding its popularity at first, did not long survive its authors. In the following century, when Theodoret wrote, the body had dwindled to a scanty remnant, compelled to conceal themselves and hold their meetings in such obscure corners that they had gained the name of |Troglodytes| (Theod. Haer. Fab. iv.3). St. Augustine remarked that in his time the few Anomoeans existing were all in the East and that there were none in Africa (Aug. de Past. Cur. c.8, p.278).

Eunomius endeavoured to develop Arianism as a formal doctrinal system; starting with the conception of God as the absolute simple Being, of Whom neither self-communication nor generation can be predicated. His essence is in this, that He is what He is of Himself alone, underived, unbegotten -- and as being the only unbegotten One, the Father, in the strict sense of Deity, is alone God; and as He is unbegotten, inasmuch as begetting necessarily involves the division and impartation of being, so it is impossible for Him to beget. If that which was begotten shared in the Theotes of the Deity, God would not be the absolute unbegotten One, but would be divided into a begotten and an unbegotten God. A communication of the essence of God, such as that involved in the idea of generation, would transfer to the Absolute Deity the notions of time and sense. An eternal generation was to Eunomius a thing absolutely inconceivable. A begetting, a bringing forth, could not be imagined as without beginning and end. The generation of the Son of God must therefore have had its beginning, as it must have had its termination, at a definite point of time. It is, therefore, incompatible with the predicate of eternity. If that can be rightly asserted of the Son, He must equally, with the Father, be unbegotten. This denial of the eternal generation of the Son involved also the denial of the likeness of His essence to that of the Father, from which the designation of the party, |Anomoean,| was derived. That which is begotten, he asserted, cannot possibly resemble the essence of that which is unbegotten; hence, equality of essence, |Homoousian,| or even similarity of essence, |Homoiousian,| is untenable. Were the begotten to resemble the unbegotten in its essence, it must cease to be unbegotten. Were the Father and the Son equal, the Son must also be unbegotten, a consequence utterly destructive of the fundamental doctrine of generation and subordination. Such generation, moreover, Eunomius held to be essentially impossible. If then, according to the teaching of the church, the Son, Who is begotten, were of the same essence as the Father Who begets, there must be both an unbegotten and a begotten element in God. The essence of the Father and of the Son must therefore be absolutely dissimilar. And as Their essence, so also is Their knowledge of Themselves different. Each knows Himself as He is, and not as the other. The one knows Himself as unbegotten, the other as begotten. Since, therefore, the Son did not share in any way the essence of the Father, what is His relation to God, and to what does He owe His origin? Eunomius's answer lay in a distinction between the essence (ousia) and the energy (energeia) of God. Neither movement nor
self-communication being predicable of the Divine Essence, it is to the Divine Energy, conceived as separable from the Theotes, that we must ascribe the calling into existence out of nothing of all that is. In virtue of this energeia only can God be called Father, as it is by this that all that is, besides Himself, has come into being. Of these creations of the Divine Energy the Son or Logos holds the first place, as the instrumental creator of the world. In this relation likeness to the Father is predicable of the Son. The Son may in this sense be regarded as the express image and likeness of the energeia of the Father, as He conferred on Him divine dignity in the power of creation. This made the immeasurable difference between the Son and all other created beings. He was produced by the Father, as an alone Being, the first or most perfect of all Beings, to be, by His will, His instrument in the creation of all other existences. God called Him into being immediately, but all other creatures mediately through Him. This teaching introduced a dualism into the essence of God Himself, when it drew a distinction between His essence and His will -- the one being infinite and absolute, and the other relative and limited to finite objects. On the ground of this dualism Eunomius is charged by Gregory Nyssen with Manicheism. Eunomius regarded the Paraclete as sharing in the Divine nature in a still more secondary and derived sense, as no more than the highest and noblest production of the Only-begotten Son, given to be the source of all light and sanctification.

The entire want of spiritual depth and life in Eunomius is shewn by his maintaining that the Divine nature is perfectly comprehensible by the human intellect, and charging those who denied this with an utter ignorance of the first principles of Christianity. He accused them of preaching an unknown God, and even denied their right to be called Christians at all, since without knowledge of God there could be no Christianity; while he denied to those who did not hold his views as to the nature of God and the generation of the Son the possession of any true knowledge of the Divine Being. He held that Christ had been sent to lead other creatures up to God, the primal source of all existence, as a Being external to Himself, and that believers should not stop at the generation of the Son, but having followed Him as far as He was able to lead them, should soar above Him, as above all created beings, whether material or spiritual, to God Himself, the One Absolute Being, as their final aim, that in the knowledge of Him they might obtain eternal life. Eunomius's poor and low idea of the knowledge of God placed it merely in a formal illumination of the understanding and a theoretical knowledge of God and spiritual truth, instead of in that fellowship with God as made known to us in Christ and that knowledge which comes from love, which the church has ever held to be the true life of the soul. In harmony with this formal, intellectual idea of knowledge, as the source of Christian life, Eunomius assigned a lower place to the sacraments than to the teaching of the word, depreciating the liturgical, as compared with the doctrinal, element of Christianity. As quoted by Gregory Nyssen, he asserted that |the essence of Christianity did not depend for its ratification on sacred terms, on the special virtue of customs and mystic symbols, but on accuracy of doctrine| (Greg. Nys. in Eunom. p.704). For fuller statements of the doctrinal system of Eunomius, see Dorner, Doctrine of the Person of Christ, div. i. vol. ii. pp.264 ff., Clark's trans.; Neander, Ch. Hist. vol. iv. pp.77 ff., Clark's trans.; Herzog, Real-Encycl. |Eunomius und Eunomianer| (from which works the foregoing account has been derived); Klose, Geschichte und Lehre des Eunomius (1833); Bauer, Dreieinigkeit, i. pp.365-387; Meyer, Trinitätslehre, pp.175 ff.; Lange, Arianismus in seiner weiteren Entwickelung.

Eunomius, as a writer, was more copious than elegant. Photius speaks very depreciatingly of his studied obscurity, the weakness of his arguments, and his logical power. Socrates estimates his style no less unfavourably (H. E. iv.7). Notwithstanding these alleged defects, his writings, which Rufinus states were very numerous and directed against the Christian faith (H. E. i.25), were much esteemed by his followers, who, according to Jerome, valued their authority more highly than that of the Gospels (Hieron. adv. Vigil. t. ii. p.123). The bold blasphemies in these books caused their destruction. Successive imperial edicts, one of Arcadius, dated not more than four years after his death a.d.398 (Cod. Theod. t. vi. p.152; lib. xvi.34), commanded that his books should be burnt, and made the possession of any of his writings a capital crime. Little of his writing remains, save some few fragments preserved in the works of his theological adversaries. His Exposition of Faith and his Apologeticus are the only pieces extant of any length.

(1) ekthesis pisteos, Fidei libellus. A confession of faith presented to Theodosius, a.d.383 (Socr. H. E. vii.12), first printed by Valesius in his notes to Socrates, afterwards by Baluze in Conciliorum Nov. Collect. i.89, and in Fabricius, Biblioth. Graeca, v.23.

(2) Apologeticus, in 28 sections. This is his most famous work, in which, with much subtlety, he seeks to refute the Nicene doctrine of the Trinity, especially the co-eternal and consubstantial divinity of Christ. Basil the Great thought the book worth an elaborate refutation, in five books, adversus Eunomium (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxx.835). An English trans. was pub. by Whiston in his Eunomianismus Redivivus (Lond.1711, 8vo).

Cave, Hist. Lit. i. p.219; Fab. Bibl. Graeca, viii. p.261; Phot. Cod.137, 138; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. vi.501 ff.

[E.V.]

Euphemitae, praying people
Euphemitae, also known as Messalians, |praying people,| and therefore reckoned by Epiphanius (Haer.80) as predecessors of the Christian sect so called. Epiphanius, our sole informant, tells us that they were neither Christians, Jews, nor Samaritans, but heathen, believing in a plurality of gods, but offering worship only to one whom they called the Almighty. They built oratories, some of which exactly resembled Christian churches; in these they met at evening and early morn, with many lights, to join in hymns and prayer. We learn from Epiphanius with some surprise that some of the magistrates put several of these people to death for perversion of the truth and unwarranted imitation of church customs, and that in particular Lupicianus, having thus punished some of them, gave occasion to a new error, for they buried the bodies, held services at the spot, and called themselves martyriani. Epiphanius also charges a section of the Euphemites with calling themselves Sataniani and worshipping Satan, thinking that by such service they might disarm his hostility. It does not appear that Epiphanius means to assert that the Christian Euchites were historically derived from these heathen Euphemites, but merely that there was a general resemblance of practices between them. Tillemont conjectured (viii.529) that the Euphemites of Epiphanius might be identical with the Hypsistarii of Greg. Naz., or less probably with the Coelicolae of Africa. [[200]Euchites.]

[G.S.]

Euphemius, patriarch of Constantinople
Euphemius (4), 3rd patriarch of Constantinople, succeeding Fravitta and followed by Macedonius II. He ruled six years and three months, a.d.489-496, and died in 515. Theophanes calls him Euthymius. He was a presbyter of Constantinople, administrator of a hospital for the poor at Neapolis, untinged with any suspicion of Eutychian leanings, and is described as learned and very virtuous. Finding that Peter Mongus, the patriarch of Alexandria, anathematized the council of Chalcedon, he was so indignant that before he took his seat on the patriarchal throne he solemnly separated from all communion with him, and with his own hands effaced his name from the diptychs, placing in its stead that of Felix III. of Rome. For a year the strife between Mongus and Euphemius was bitter. Each summoned councils against the other; Euphemius even thought of persuading a council to depose Mongus; but at the end of Oct.490 Mongus died.

To pope Felix the patriarch sent letters, as was usual, to announce his election, but received the reply that he might be admitted as a private member of the church Catholic, but could not be received in communion as a bishop, because he had not removed from the diptychs the names of his predecessors, Acacius and Fravitta.

At the death (probably in 489) of Daniel the Stylite on the pillar where he had lived for 33 years, Euphemius came with others to the foot of the pillar to attend his last moments. Anastasius, the future emperor, then an aged officer of the emperor Zeno, held Eutychian views, and, according to Suidas, formed a sect which met in some church of Constantinople. The patriarch appeared before the conventicle with menacing gestures and drove them from the spot. |If you must frequent the church,| he exclaimed, |agree with her! or else no more enter into her gates to pervert men more simple than yourself.| Henceforth, says the annalist, Anastasius kept quiet, for the sake of the glory that he coveted. As the emperor Zeno died in 491, this must have occurred within two years after the consecration of Euphemius, and it witnesses alike to his intrepidity and his influence. After the death of Zeno, the empress Ariadne procured the election of Anastasius, on the understanding that he was to marry her. The patriarch openly called him a heretic, unworthy of reigning over Christians, and refused to crown him, despite the entreaties of the empress and the senate, until Anastasius would give a written profession of his creed, promise under his hand to keep the Catholic faith intact, make no innovation in the church, and follow as his rule of belief the decrees of Chalcedon. Anastasius gave the writing under most solemn oaths, and Euphemius put it in charge of the saintly Macedonius, chancellor and treasurer of the church of Constantinople, to be stored in the archives of the cathedral (Evagr. iii.3z).

At the end of 491, or on Feb.25, 492, pope Felix died. His successor Gelasius immediately announced his elevation to the emperor Anastasius, but took no notice of Euphemius, who had written at once to express his congratulations, and his desire for peace and for the reunion of the churches. Not obtaining an answer, he wrote a second time. Neither letter remains, but the reply of Gelasius shews that Euphemius, in congratulating the Roman church on its pontiff, added that he himself was not sufficiently his own master to do what he wished; that the people of Constantinople would never agree to disgrace the memory of their late patriarch Acacius; that if that were necessary, the pope had better write to the people about it himself, and send someone to try and persuade them; that Acacius had never said anything against the faith, and that if he was in communion with Mongus, it was when Mongus had given a satisfactory account of his creed. Euphemius subjoined his own confession, rejecting Eutyches and accepting Chalcedon. It seems also that Euphemius spoke of those who had been baptized and ordained by Acacius since the sentence pronounced against him at Rome, and pointed out how embarrassing it would be if the memory of Acacius must be condemned (Ceillier, x.486). Replying to these temperate counsels, Gelasius allows that in other circumstances he would have written to announce his election, but sourly observes that the custom existed only among those bishops who were united in communion, and was not to be extended to those who, like Euphemius, preferred a strange alliance to that of St. Peter. He allows the necessity of gentleness and tenderness, but remarks that there is no need to throw yourself into the ditch when you are helping others out. As a mark of condescension he willingly grants the canonical remedy to all who had been baptized and ordained by Acacius. Can Euphemius possibly wish him to allow the names of condemned heretics and their successors to be recited in the sacred diptychs? Euphemius professed to reject Eutyches; let him reject also those who have communicated with the successors of Eutyches. Was it not even worse for Acacius to know the truth and yet communicate with its enemies? The condemnation of Acacius was ipso facto according to the decrees of ancient councils. If Peter Mongus did purge himself, why did not Euphemius send proofs of it? He is much vexed with Euphemius for saying that he is constrained to do things which he does not wish; no bishop should talk so about that truth for which he ought to lay down his life. He refuses to send a mission to Constantinople, for it is the pastor's duty to convince his own flock. At the tribunal of Jesus Christ it will be seen which of the two is bitter and hard. The high spirit of the orthodox patriarch was fired by this dictatorial interference. He even thought of summoning the pope himself to account; and as Gelasius was certainly even more suspicious of the emperor Anastasius, who was, despite the recantation which Euphemius had enforced, a real Eutychian at heart, it is very likely that, as Baronius asserts, the patriarch did not attempt to conceal the pope's antipathy to the emperor.

Nothing cooled the zeal of Euphemius for the council of Chalcedon. Anastasius harboured designs against its supporters; the patriarch gathered together the bishops who were at Constantinople, and invited them to confirm its decrees. According to Theophanes and Victor of Tunis, this occurred in 492 (Vict. Tun. Chron. p.5); but in Mansi (vii.1180) the event is placed at the beginning of the patriarchate of Euphemius, and the decrees are said to have been sent by the bishops to pope Felix III. Various jars shewed the continued rupture with Rome. Theodoric had become master of Italy, and in 493 sent Faustus and Irenaeus to the emperor Anastasius to ask to peace. During their sojourn at Constantinople the envoys received complaints from the Greeks against the Roman church, which they reported to the pope. Euphemius urged that the condemnation of Acacius by one prelate only was invalid; to excommunicate a metropolitan of Constantinople a general council was necessary (ib. viii.16). Now occurred that imprudence which unhappily cost Euphemius his throne. Anastasius, tired of war against the Isaurians, was seeking an honourable way of stopping it. He asked Euphemius in confidence to beg the bishops at Constantinople (there were always bishops coming and going to and from the metropolis) to pray for peace and thus furnish him with an opportunity of entering on negotiations. Euphemius betrayed the secret to John the patrician, father-in-law of Athenodorus, one of the chiefs of the Isaurians. John hurried to the emperor to inform him of the patriarch's indiscretion. Anastasius was deeply offended, and thenceforth never ceased to persecute his old opponent. He accused him of helping the Isaurians against him, and of corresponding with them (Theoph. Chronog. a.d.488). An assassin, either by Anastasius's own order or to gain his favour, drew his sword on Euphemius at the door of the sacristy, but was struck down by an attendant.

Anastasius sought other means to get rid of Euphemius. Theodorus speaks of the violence with which he demanded back the profession of faith on which his coronation had depended (Theod. Lect. ii.8, 572 seq. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.). He assembled the bishops who were in the capital and preferred charges against their metropolitan, whom they obsequiously declared excommunicated and deposed. The people loyally refused to surrender him, but had soon to yield to the emperor.

Meanwhile Euphemius, fearing for his life, retired to the baptistery, and refused to go out until Macedonius had promised on the word of the emperor that no violence should be done him when they conducted him to exile. With a proper feeling of respect for the fallen greatness and unconquerable dignity of his predecessor, Macedonius, on coming to find him in the baptistery, made the attendant deacon take off the newly-given pallium and clothed himself in the dress of a simple presbyter, |not daring to wear| his insignia before their canonical owner. After some conversation, Macedonius (himself to follow Euphemius to the very same place of exile under the same emperor) handed to him the proceeds of a loan he had raised for his expenses. Euphemius was taken to Eucaïtes in 495, the fifth year of Anastasius. His death occurred 20 years later at Ancyra, whither, it is thought, the Hunnish invasion had made him retire. Elias, metropolitan of Jerusalem, himself afterwards expelled from his see by Anastasius, stood stoutly by Euphemius at the time of his exile, declaring against the legality of his sentence (Cyrillus, Vita S. Sabae, c.69, apud Sur. t. vi.). In the East Euphemius was always honoured as the defender of the Catholic faith and of Chalcedon, and as a man of the highest holiness and orthodoxy. Great efforts were made at the fifth general council to get his name put solemnly back in the diptychs (Mansi, viii.1061 E). The authorities for his Life are, Marcel. Chron. a.d.491-495 in Patr. Lat. li. p.933; Theod. Lect. Eccl. Hist. ii.6-15 in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi. pt. i.185-189; Theoph. Chronog. a.d.481-489 in Patr. Gk. cviii.324-337; St. Niceph. Constant. Chronog. Brev.45 in Patr. Gk. c. p.1046; Baronius, a.d.489-495; Gelas. Pap. Ep. et Decret. i. in Patr. Lat. lix.13.

[W.M.S.]

Euprepius, bp. of Bizya
Euprepius (4), bp. of Bizya in Thrace; one of 68 bishops who demanded that the opening of the council of Ephesus should be postponed until the arrival of John of Antioch. He signed on this occasion also for Fritilas bp. of Heraclea (Synod. adv. Tragoed. cap.7, in Theod. Opp. t. v. in Patr. Gk. lxxxiv.591). He nevertheless attended the council when it opened, signed the sentence against Nestorius and the |decretum de fide| (Mansi, iv.1225 C, 1364 E). Euprepius is chiefly of interest from the memorial termed |Supplex libellus,| which he and Cyril, bp. of Coele in the same province, jointly addressed to the fathers of the council (ib.1478), stating that by an ancient custom in the European provinces a bishop sometimes had more bishoprics than one under his charge; that Euprepius was then administering the see of Arcadiopolis in addition to that of Bizya, while Cyril was acting similarly. The council was requested to rule that this custom might not be disturbed, and that Fritilas, bp. of Heraclea, might be forbidden to appoint bishops in those cities of Thrace which were then without bishops of their own. The prayer was granted, and it was decreed that the custom of the cities in question should be respected (Le Quien, Or. Chr. i.1136, 1145).

[E.V.]

Euric, king of Toulouse
Euric (1) (Evarich, Evorich, Euthorik, Evarix), king of the Visigothic kingdom of Toulouse from 466 to 484, and from 477 onwards master of almost the whole of Spain. Under him the Visigoth power reached its highest point. In the reign of his successor it was curtailed by the Franks, while in that of his father, Theodoric or Theodored I. (d.451) and his brothers, Thorismund and Theodoric II., the country occupied by the Goths had still been reckoned as an integral part of the empire (|auxiliamini reipublicae,| says Aetius to the Goths before the battle of Chalons, |cujus membrum tenetis,| Jord. c.36), while the Gothic state had found it necessary to submit again and again to the foedus with Rome. |Euric, therefore, king of the Visigoths,| says Jord. c.45, |seeing the frequent changes of the Roman princes| (and the weakness of the Roman kingdom, |Romani regni vacillationem,| as he says in c.46), |attempted to occupy the Gauls in his own right, suo jure.| And again, |Totas Hispanias Galliasque sibi jam proprio jure tenens.| Thus the pretence of the foedus was finally set aside, and in the interval between the fall of the western empire and the rise of the Ostrogoths and Franks, Euric appears as the most powerful sovereign of the West (Dahn, v.100). In 466, the year of his accession, Euric sent legates to the Eastern emperor Leo, perhaps with a last thought of renewing the foedus. The negotiations came to nothing, and in 467 the Goths and Vandals made a defensive league against Leo, Anthemius, and Rikimir, who were about to attack Genseric. Beside his Vandalic auxiliaries in Gaul, Euric also had the support of a certain party among the provincials themselves, as is shewn by the evidence given at the trial of Arvandus, prefect of the Gauls, for treasonable correspondence with the Goths (Sidon. Apoll. i.7), and in 468 he attacked the newly made Western emperor Anthemius simultaneously in Gaul and Spain, with the result that by 474 the Gothic dominion in Gaul would have extended from the Atlantic to the Rhone and Mediterranean, and from the Pyrenees to the Loire, but for one obstacle -- the vigorous defence of Auvergne by Ecdicius, son of the emperor Avitus, and the famous bp. of Clermont, Sidonius Apollinaris (Sid. Apoll. vii.1). The history of this dramatic struggle, preserved in the letters of Sidonius, throws valuable light on the politics of the 5th cent. It is the last desperate effort of the provincial nobility to avoid barbarian masters, and it is a fight, too, of Catholicism against Arianism. But it was unsuccessful. After besieging Clermont in 474, Euric withdrew into winter quarters, while Sidonius and Ecdicius, in the midst of devastated country, organized fresh resistance. But with the spring diplomacy intervened. Glycerius, fearful for Italy, and hoping to purchase a renewal of the foedus, had in 473 formally ceded the country to Euric, a compact rejected by Ecdicius and Sidonius; and now Nepos, for the same reasons, sent legates to Euric, amongst them the famous Epiphanius of Pavia (Ennod. Vita S. Epiph. AA. SS. Jan. ii. p.369), to treat for peace. Euric persisted in the demand for Auvergne, and accordingly, in return for a renewal of the foedus (|fidelibus animis foederabuntur,| Sid. Apoll. ix.5), Ecdicius and Sidonius were ordered to submit, and the district was given over to the revenge of the Goths. Ecdicius fled to the Burgundians, while Sidonius (see Ep. vii.7, for his invectives against the peace -- |Pudeat vos hujus foederis, nec utilis nec decori!|), having vainly attempted to make favourable terms for the Catholics with Euric, was banished to Livia, near Narbonne (Sid. Apoll. viii.3). By the influence of Euric's minister, Leo, he was released after a year's imprisonment, and appeared at the Gothic court at Bordeaux, where, during a stay of two months, he succeeded in obtaining only one audience of the king, so great was the crowd of ambassadors, and the pressure of important business awaiting the decision of Euric and his minister. In Epp. viii.9, Sidonius has left us a brilliant picture of the Gothic king, surrounded by barbarian envoys, Roman legates, and even Persian ambassadors. The Gothic territory in Gaul was now bounded by the Loire, the Rhone, and the two seas, while in Spain a great many towns were already held by Gothic garrisons. Euric's troops easily overran the whole country at their next great advance. In 475 came the fall of Nepos and Augustulus, and the suspension of the empire of the West. The news aroused all the barbarian races in Gaul and Spain. Euric, with an Ostrogothic reinforcement under Widimer, crossed the Pyrenees in 477, took Pampelona and Saragossa, and annihilated the resistance of the Roman nobility in Tarraconensis. By 478 the whole peninsula had fallen to the Goths, except a mountainous strip in the N.W., relinquished probably by treaty to the Suevi. By this complete conquest of the peninsula, |a place of refuge was provided for the Goths . . . destined in the following generation to fall back before the young and all-subduing power of the Franks, called to a greater work than they| (Dahn, Könige der Germanen, v.98). Fresh successes in Gaul followed close upon the Spanish campaign. Arles was taken, 480, Marseilles, 481, and ultimately the whole of Provence up to the Maritime Alps (Proc. b. G. i.1, quoted by Dahn, l.c.), and the exiled Nepos, indeed, seems to have formally surrendered almost the whole of southern Roman Gaul to Euric. Euric was now sovereign from the Loire to the Straits of Gibraltar, and appears as the protector of the neighbouring barbarian races against the encroaching Franks (Cass. Var. iii.3), taking the same position towards them as Theodoric the Great took later in the reign of Euric's son Alaric, Theodoric's son-in-law. Euric survived the accession of Chlodwig (Clovis) three years, dying before Sept.485.

Euric's Personal Character, and his Persecutions of the Catholics. -- His commanding gifts and personality cannot be doubted. Even his bitterest enemy, Sidonius, speaks of his courage and capacity with unwilling admiration. |Pre-eminent in war, of fiery courage and vigorous youth,| says Sidonius (|armis potens, acer animis, alacer annis,| Ep. vii.6), |he makes but one mistake -- that of supposing that his successes are due to the correctness of his religion, when he owes them rather to a stroke of earthly good fortune.| Euric was much interested in religious matters and a passionate Arian, not merely apparently from political motives, though his persecution of the Catholic bishops was dictated by sufficient political reasons. The letter of Sidonius quoted above throws great light upon Euric's relation to the Catholic church, and upon the state of the church under his government. |It must be confessed,| he says, |that although this king of the Goths is terrible because of his power, I fear his attacks upon the Christian laws more than I dread his blows for the Roman walls. The mere name of Catholic, they say, curdles his countenance and heart like vinegar, so that you might almost doubt whether he was more the king of his people or of his sect. Lose no time,| he adds, addressing his correspondent Basilius, bp. of Aix, |in ascertaining the hidden weakness of the Catholic state, that you may be able to apply prompt and public remedy. Bordeaux, Périgueux, Rodez, Limoges, Gabale, Eause, Bazas, Comminges, Auch, and many other towns, where death has cut off the bishops [|summis sacerdotibus ipsorum morte truncatis,| a passage misunderstood later by Gregory of Tours, who speaks of the execution of bishops, Hist. Franc. ii.25], and no new bishops have been appointed in their places . . . mark the wide boundary of spiritual ruin. The evil grows every day with the successive deaths of the bishops, and the heretics, both of the present and the past, might be moved by the suffering of congregations deprived of their bishops, and in despair for their lost faith.| The churches were crumbling; thorns filled the open doorways; cattle browsed in the porches and on the grass round the altar. Even in town churches services were rare, and |when a priest dies, and no episcopal benediction gives him a successor in that church, not only the priest but the priest's office dies| (|sacerdotium moritur, non sacerdos|). Not only are vacancies caused by death: two bishops, Crocus and Simplicius, are mentioned as deposed and exiled by Euric. Finally, Sidonius implores the aid of Basilius, the position of whose bishopric made him diplomatically important (|per vos mala foederum currunt, per vos regni utriusque pacta conditionesque portantur|) towards obtaining for the Catholics from the Gothic government the right of ordaining bishops, that |so we may keep our hold upon the people of the Gauls, if not ex foedere, at least ex fide.|

Gregory of Tours in the next cent. echoed and exaggerated the account of Sidonius, and all succeeding Catholic writers have accused Euric of the same intolerant persecution of the church. The persecution must be looked upon, to a great extent, as political. The Catholic bishops and the provincial nobility were the natural leaders of the Romanized populations. The ecclesiastical organization made the bishops specially formidable (see Dahn's remarks on the Vandal king Huneric's persecutions, op. cit. i.250). Their opposition threatened the work of Euric's life, and did, in fact, with the aid of the orthodox Franks, destroy it in the reign of his successor. But the persecution has a special interest as one of the earliest instances of that oppression in the name of religion, of which the later history of the Goths in conquered Spain is everywhere full (Dahn, v.101). Euric, however, did not oppress the Romans as such. His minister Leo (Sid. Apoll. viii.3), and count Victorius, to whom was entrusted the government of Auvergne after its surrender (ib. vii.17; Greg. Tur. ii.35), were of illustrious Roman families. It was probably by Leo's help that Euric drew up the code of laws of which Isidore and others speak (Hist. Goth. apud Esp. Sagr. vi.486); Dahn, Könige der Germanen, Vte Abth. pp.88-101, see list of sources and literature prefixed. For the ultra-Catholic view of the persecution, see Gams's Kirchengesch. von Spanien, ii.1, 484.

[M.A.W.]

Eusebius, bishop of Rome
Eusebius (1), succeeded Marcellus as bp. of Rome, a.d.309 or 310. He was banished by Maxentius to Sicily, where he died after a pontificate of four months (Apr.18 to Aug.17). His body was brought back to Rome, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus on the Appian Way. Hardly anything was known with certainty about this bishop till the discoveries of de Rossi in the catacombs. That he was buried in the cemetery of Callistus rested on the authority of the Liberian Deposit. Episc. and the Felician catalogue. But ancient itineraries, written by persons who had visited these tombs, described his resting-place as not being the papal crypt in that cemetery, where all the popes (with two exceptions) since Pontianus had been laid, but in a separate one some distance from it. De Rossi found this crypt, and therein discovered, in 1852 and 1856, fragments of the inscription placed by pope Damasus over the grave, and known from copies taken before the closing of the catacombs. But it was previously uncertain whether it referred to Eusebius the pope or to some other Eusebius. All such doubt was now set at rest by the discovery, in the crypt referred to, of 46 fragments of a slab bearing a copy of the original inscription, and of the original slab, identified by the peculiar characters of Damasine inscriptions. The inscription is as follows: --

Damasus Episcopus feci.

Heraclius vetuit lapsos peccata dolere

Eusebius miseros docuit sua crimina flere

Scinditur in partes populus gliscente furore

Seditio caedes bellum discordia lites

Extemplo pariter pulsi feritate tyranni

Integra cum rector servaret foedera pacis

Pertulit exilium domino sub judice laetus

Litore Trinacrio mundum vitamque reliquit.

Eusebio Episcopo et martyri.|

We thus have revealed a state of things at Rome of which no other record has been preserved. It would seem that, on the cessation of Diocletian's persecution, the church there was rent into two parties on the subject of the terms of readmission of the lapsed to communion: that one Heraclius headed a party who were for readmission without the penitential discipline insisted on by Eusebius; that the consequent tumults and bloodshed caused |the tyrant| Maxentius to interpose and banish the leaders of both factions; and that Eusebius, dying during his exile in Sicily, thus obtained the name of martyr. It appears further, from the similar Damasine inscription on Marcellus, that the contest had begun before the accession of Eusebius, who, like Marcellus, had required penance from the lapsi. [[201]Marcellus (3).] The way in which the name of Heraclius occurs in the inscription on Eusebius suggests that he may have been elected as an antipope (so Lipsius, Chronologie der römischen Bischöfe). At any rate, the subject of dispute was the same as had led to the first election of an antipope, viz. Novatian, after the Decian persecution, some 50 years before; though on the earlier occasion the question was whether the lapsi were to be readmitted to communion at all or not, the schismatics being on the side of severity; on the later occasion the question was only about the conditions of their readmission, the dissentients being on the side of laxity. In both instances the church of Rome, as represented by her lawful bishops, seems to have held a consistent and judicious course.

[J.B -- Y.]

Eusebius of Alexandria, writer of sermons
Eusebius (5), of Alexandria, a writer of sermons, about whom Galland says |all is uncertain; nothing can be affirmed on good grounds as to his age or as to his bishopric| (Bibl. Patr. viii. p. xxiii.). It is uncertain whether he belongs to the 5th or the 6th cent. A complete list of sermons is given by Mai, as follows: 1. On Fasting. 2. On Love. 3. On the Incarnation and its Causes. 4. On Thankfulness in Sickness. 5. On Imparting Grace to him that Lacks it. 6. On Sudden Death, or, Those that Die by Snares. 7. On New Moon, Sabbath, and on not Observing the Voices of Birds. 8. On Commemoration of Saints. 9. On Meals, at such festivals. 10. On the Nativity. 11. On the Baptism of Christ. 12. On |Art thou He that should come?| 13. On the Coming of John into Hades, and on the Devil. 14. On the Treason of Judas. 15. On the Devil and Hades. 16. On the Lord's Day. 17. On the Passion, for the Preparation Day. 18. On the Resurrection. 19. On the Ascension. 20. On the Second Advent. 21. On |Astronomers.| 22. On Almsgiving, and on the Rich Man and Lazarus. He adheres to the Catholic doctrines of the Trinity and the Incarnation. He uses the ordinary Eastern phrase, |Christ our God,| speaks of Him as Maker of the world, as Master of the creation, as present from the beginning with the prophets, and as the Lord of Isaiah's vision. He calls the Holy Spirit consubstantial with the Father and the Son; in the sermon on Almsgiving he calls the Virgin Mother |Ever-Virgin,| |Theotokos,| and |our undefiled Lady.|, He insists on free will and responsibility. |God . . . saith, 'If you do not choose to hear Me, I do not compel you.' God could make thee good against thy will, but what is involuntary is unrewarded. . . . If He wrote it down that I was to commit sin, and I do commit it, why does He judge me?| If a man means to please God, |God holds out a hand to him straightway,| etc. Before a man renounces the world (by a monastic vow), let him try himself, know his own soul. He who fasts must fast with |tongue, eyes, hands, feet|; his whole |body, soul, and spirit| must be restrained from all sinful indulgence. |Fast, as the Lord said, in cheerfulness, with sincere love to all men. But when you have done all this, do not think you are better than A. or B. Say you are unprofitable servants.| People are not to blame wine, but those who drink it to excess; nor riches, but the man who administers them ill. Abraham had riches, but they harmed him not, etc. Some sentences shew a true spiritual insight: |What sort of righteousness exceeds the rest? Love, for without it no good comes of any other. What sin is worst? All sin is dreadful, but none is worse than covetousness and remembrance of injuries| (Serm. On Love). He has humour, too, which must have told: |on Sundays the herald calls people to church; everybody says he is sleepy, or unwell. Hark! a sound of harp or pipe, a noise of dancing: all hasten that way as if on wings| (Hom. on the Lord's Day, Galland. viii.253). He depicts vividly the extravagance of Alexandrian wealth; the splendid houses glistening with marble, beds and carpets wrought with gold and pearls, horses with golden bridles and saddles, the crowds of servants of various classes -- some to attend the great man when he rides out, some to manage his lands or his house, building, or his kitchen, some to fan him at his meals, to keep the house quiet during his slumber: -- the varieties of white bread, the pheasants, geese, peacocks, hares, etc., served up at his table. The Christian should look forward to Sunday, not simply as a day of rest from labour, but as a day of prayer and Communion. Let him come in early morning to church for the Eucharistic service (the features of it are enumerated: the psalmody, the reading of Prophets, of St. Paul, of the Gospels, the Angelic and Seraphic hymns, the ceaseless Alleluia, the exhortations of bishops and presbyters, the presence of Christ |on the sacred table,| the |coming| of the Spirit). |If thy conscience is clear, approach, and receive the Body and Blood of the Lord. If it condemns thee in regard to wicked deeds, decline the Communion until thou hast corrected it by repentance, but stay through the prayers [i.e. the communion service], and do not go out of the church unless thou art dismissed|; or again, |before the dismissal.| He severely blames a layman who tastes food before the Liturgy is over, whether he communicates or not; but denounces those who communicate after eating (as many do on Easter Day itself) as if guilty of a heinous sin. (In this case, as in regard to premature departure from church, he does not scruple to refer to Judas.) He blames those who do not communicate when a priest, known to be of bad life, is the celebrant; for |God turneth not away, and the bread becomes the Body.| He reproves those who are disorderly at the vigil services of a saint's festival, and at daybreak rise and cause great disturbances. |Inside the church, the priest is presenting the supplication . . . having set forth (protetheikos) the Body and the Blood . . . for the salvation of the world: while, outside, amusements go on.| He refers to the different functions of priest, deacon, reader, chanter, and subdeacon (uperetes). He encourages invocation of saints.

Mai calls him a writer delightful from his |ingenuitas,| his |Christian ac pastoralis simplicitas,| and his |nativum dicendi genus| (Patrum Nov. Biblioth. ii.499).

[W.B.]

Eusebius of Caesarea
Eusebius (23) of Caesarea, also known as Eusebius Pamphili. Of extant sources of our knowledge of Eusebius the most important are the scattered notices in writers of the same or immediately succeeding ages, e.g. Athanasius, Jerome, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. At a later date some valuable information is contained in the proceedings of the second council of Nicaea (Labbe, Conc. viii.1144 seq. ed. Colet.), and in the Antirrhetica of the patriarch Nicephorus (Spicil. Solesm. i. pp.371 seq.) likewise connected with the Iconoclastic controversy. The primary sources of information, however, for the career of one who was above all a literary man must be sought in his own works. The only edition of them which aims at completeness is in Migne's Patr. Gk. vols. xix.-xxiv. See also the standard works of Cave (Hist. Lit. i. pp.175 seq.), Tillemont (Hist. Eccl. vii. pp.39 seq., 659 seq., together with scattered notices in his account of the Arians and of the Nicene council in vol. vi.), and Fabricius (Bibl. Graec. vii. pp.335 seq. ed. Harles). The most complete monograph is Stein's Eusebius Bischof Von Cäsarea (Würzburg, 1852). There is a useful English trans. of the History in the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, by Mr. Giffert; cf. A. C. Headlam, The Editions or MSS. of Eusebius, in Journal of Theol. Studies, 1902, iii.93-102.

The references in his own works will hardly allow us to place his birth much later than a.d.260, so that he would be nearly 80 at his death. All notices of his early life are connected with Caesarea; and as it was then usual to prefer a native as bishop, everything favours this as the city of his birth.

Of his parentage and relationships absolutely nothing is known, but here, as a child, he was catechized in that declaration of belief which years afterwards was laid by him before the great council of Nicaea, and adopted by the assembled Fathers as a basis for the creed of the universal church. Here he listened to the Biblical expositions of the learned Dorotheus, thoroughly versed in the Hebrew Scriptures and not unacquainted with Greek literature and philosophy, once the superintendent of the emperor's purple factory at Tyre, but now a presbyter in the church of Caesarea (H. E. vii.32). Here, in due time, he was himself ordained a presbyter, probably by that bp. Agapius whose wise forethought and untiring assiduity and openhanded benevolence he himself has recorded (ib.). Here, above all, he contracted with the saintly student Pamphilus that friendship which was the crown and glory of his life, and which martyrdom itself could not sever. Eusebius owed far more to Pamphilus than the impulse and direction given to his studies. Pamphilus, no mere student recluse, was a man of large heart and bountiful hand, above all things helpful to his friends (Mart. Pal.11), giving freely to all in want; he multiplied copies of the Scriptures, which he distributed gratuitously (Eus. in Hieron. c. Rufin. i.9, Op. ii.465); and to the sympathy of the friend he united the courage of the hero. He had also the power of impressing his own strong convictions on others. Hence, when the great trial of faith came, his house was found to be not only the home of students but the nursery of martyrs. To one like Eusebius, who owed his strength and his weakness alike to a ready susceptibility of impression from those about him, such a friendship was an inestimable blessing. He expressed the strength of his devotion to this friend by adopting his name, being known as |Eusebius of Pamphilus.|

Eusebius was in middle life when the last and fiercest persecution broke out. For nearly half a century -- a longer period than at any other time since its foundation -- the church had enjoyed uninterrupted peace as regards attacks from without. Suddenly and unexpectedly all was changed. The city of Caesarea became a chief centre of persecution. Eusebius tells how he saw the houses of prayer razed to the ground, the holy Scriptures committed to the flames in the market-places, the pastors hiding themselves, and shamefully jeered at when caught by their persecutors (H. E. viii.2). For seven years the attacks continued. At Tyre also Eusebius saw several Christians torn by wild beasts in the amphitheatre (ib.7, 8). Leaving Palestine, he visited Egypt. In no country did the persecution rage more fiercely. Here, in the Thebaid, they perished, ten, twenty, even sixty or a hundred at a time. Eusebius tells how he in these parts witnessed numerous martyrdoms in a single day, some by beheading, others by fire; the executioners relieving each other by relays and the victims eagerly pressing forward to be tortured, clamouring for the honour of martyrdom, and receiving their sentence with joy and laughter (ib.9). This visit to Egypt was apparently after the imprisonment and martyrdom of Pamphilus, in the latest and fiercest days of the persecution. It was probably now that Eusebius was imprisoned for his faith. If so, we have the less difficulty in explaining his release, without any stain left on his integrity or his courage.

Not long after the restoration of peace (a.d.313) Eusebius was unanimously elected to the vacant see of Caesarea. Among the earliest results of the peace was the erection of a magnificent basilica at Tyre under the direction of his friend Paulinus, the bishop. Eusebius was invited to deliver the inaugural address. This address he has preserved and inserted in his History, where, though not mentioned, the orator's name is but thinly concealed (H. E. ix.4). This oration is a paean of thanksgiving over the restitution of the Church, of which the splendid building at Tyre was at once the firstfruit and the type. The incident must have taken place not later than a.d.315. For more than 25 years he presided over the church of Caesarea, winning the respect and affection of all. He died bp. of Caesarea.

When the Arian controversy broke out, the sympathies of Eusebius were early enlisted on the side of Arius. If his namesake of Nicomedia may be trusted, he was especially zealous on behalf of the Arian doctrine at this time (Eus. Nicom. in Theod. H. E. i.5, he tou despotou mou Eusebiou spoude he huper alethous logou. But the testimony of this strong partisan may well be suspected; and the attitude of Eusebius of Caesarea throughout suggests that he was influenced rather by personal associations and the desire to secure liberal treatment for the heresiarch than by any real accordance with his views. Whatever his motives, he wrote to Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, remonstrating with him for deposing Arius and urging that he had misrepresented the opinions of the latter (Labbe, Conc. viii.1148, ed. Colet). The cause of Arius was taken up also by two neighbouring bishops, Theodotus of Laodicea and Paulinus of Tyre. In a letter addressed to his namesake of Constantinople, Alexander complains of three Syrian bishops, |appointed he knows not how,| as having fanned the flame of sedition (Theod. H. E. i.3); while Arius himself claims |all the bishops in the East,| mentioning by name Eusebius of Caesarea with others, as on his side (ib. i.4). Accordingly, when he was deposed by a synod convened at Alexandria by Alexander, Arius appealed to Eusebius and others to interpose. A meeting of Syrian bishops decided for his restoration, though wording the decision cautiously. The synod thought that Arius should be allowed to gather his congregation about him as heretofore, but added that he must render obedience to Alexander and entreat to be admitted to communion with him (Soz. H. E. i.15).

At the council of Nicaea (a.d.325) Eusebius took a leading part. This prominence he cannot have owed to his bishopric, which, though important, did not rank with the great sees, |the apostolic thrones| (ib.17) of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. But that he was beyond question the most learned man and most famous living writer in the church at this time would suffice to secure him a hearing. Probably, however, his importance was due even more to his close relations with the great emperor, whose entire confidence he enjoyed. He occupied the first seat to the emperor's right (V. C. iii.11), and delivered the opening address to Constantine when he took his seat in the council-chamber (ib. i. prooem., iii.11; Soz. H. E. i.19). The speech is unfortunately not preserved.

Eusebius himself has left us an account of his doings with regard to the main object of the council in a letter of explanation to his church at Caesarea. He laid before the council the creed in use in the Caesarean church, which had been handed down from the bishops who preceded him, which he himself had been taught at his baptism, and in which, both as a presbyter and bishop, he had instructed others. The emperor was satisfied with the orthodoxy of this creed, inserting however the single word homoousion and giving explanations as to its meaning which set the scruples of Eusebius at rest. The assembled Fathers, taking this as their starting-point, made other important insertions and alterations. Moreover, an anathema was appended directly condemning Arian doctrines. Eusebius took time to consider before subscribing to this revised formula. The three expressions which caused difficulty were: (1) |of the substance of the Father| (ek tes ousias tou patros); (2) |begotten, not made| (gennethenta, ou poiethenta); (3) |of the same substance| (homoousion); and of these he demanded explanations. The explanations were so far satisfactory that for the sake of peace he subscribed to the creed. He had the less scruple in assenting to the final anathema, because the Arian expressions which it condemned were not scriptural, and he considered that |almost all the confusion and disturbance of the churches| had arisen from the use of unscriptural phrases. This letter, he concludes, is written to the Caesareans to explain that he would resist to the last any vital change in the traditional creed of his church, but had subscribed to these alterations, when assured of their innocence, to avoid appearing contentious (aphiloneikos). See Hort's Two Dissertations, pp.55 seq.

The settlement of the dispute respecting the time of observing Easter was another important work undertaken by the council. In this also a leading part has been assigned to Eusebius by some modern writers (e.g. Stanley, Eastern Church, p.182, following Tillemont, H. E. vi. p.668).

The hopes which Eusebius with others had built upon the decisions of the Nicene council were soon dashed. The final peace of the church seemed as far distant as ever. In three controversies with three distinguished antagonists, Eusebius took a more or less prominent part; and his reputation, whether justly or not, has suffered greatly in consequence.

(i) Synod of Antioch. -- Eustathius, bp. of Antioch, was a staunch advocate of the Nicene doctrine and a determined foe of the Arians. He had assailed the tenets of Origen (Socr. H. E. vi.13), of whom Eusebius was an ardent champion, and had charged Eusebius himself with faithlessness to the doctrines of Nicaea. He was accused in turn of Sabellianism by Eusebius (ib. i.23; Soz. H. E. ii.19). To the historian Socrates the doctrines of the two antagonists seemed practically identical. Nevertheless they were regarded as the two principals in the quarrel (Soz. H. E. ii.18). A synod, mainly composed of bishops with Arian or semi-Arian sympathies, was assembled at Antioch, a.d.330 to consider the charge of Sabellianism brought against Eustathius, who was deposed. The see of Antioch thus became vacant. The assembled bishops proposed Eusebius of Caesarea as his successor, and wrote to the emperor on his behalf, but Eusebius declined the honour, alleging the rule of the Church, regarded as an |apostolic tradition,| which forbade translations from one see to another; and Euphronius was elected.

(ii) Synods of Caesarea, Tyre, and Jerusalem. -- The next stage of the Arian controversy exhibits Eusebius in conflict with a greater than Eustathius. The disgraceful intrigues of the Arians and Meletians against Athanasius, which led to his first exile, are related in our art. Athanasius. It is sufficient to say here that the emperor summoned Athanasius to appear before a gathering of bishops at Caesarea, to meet the charges brought against him. It is stated by Theodoret (H. E. i.26) that Constantine was induced to name Caesarea by the Arian party, who selected it because the enemies of Athanasius were in a majority there (entha de pleious esan oi dusmeneis), but the emperor may have given the preference to Caesarea because he reposed the greatest confidence in the moderation (epieikeia) of its bishop. Athanasius excused himself from attending, believing that there was a conspiracy against him, and that he would not have fair play there (Festal Letters, p. xvii, Oxf. trans.; Theod. H. E. i.26; Soz. H. E. ii.25). This was in 334. Athanasius does not mention this synod in his Apology.

The next year (a.d.335) Athanasius received a peremptory and angry summons from Constantine to appear before a synod of bishops at Tyre. Theodoret (l.c.) conjectures (hos oimai) that the place of meeting was changed by the emperor out of deference to the fears of Athanasius, who |looked with suspicion on Caesarea on account of its ruler.| Athanasius, or his friends, may indeed have objected to Eusebius as a partisan; for the Egyptian bishops who espoused the cause of Athanasius, addressing the synod of Tyre, allege |the law of God| as forbidding |an enemy to be witness or judge,| and shortly afterwards add mysteriously, |ye know why Eusebius of Caesarea has become an enemy since last year| (Athan. Ap. c. Arian.77, Op. i. p.153). The scenes at the synod of Tyre form the most picturesque and the most shameful chapter in the Arian controversy. After all allowance for the exaggerations of the Athanasian party, from whom our knowledge is chiefly derived, the proceedings will still remain an undying shame to Eusebius of Nicomedia and his fellow-intriguers. But there is no reason for supposing that Eusebius of Caesarea took any active part in these plots. Athanasius mentions him rarely, and then without any special bitterness. The |Eusebians| (hoi peri Eusebion) are always the adherents of his Nicomedian namesake. But, though probably not participating in, and possibly ignorant of their plots, Eusebius of Caesarea was certainly used as a tool by the more unscrupulous and violent partisan of Arius, and must bear the reproach of a too easy compliance with their actions. The proceedings were cut short by the withdrawal of Athanasius, who suddenly sailed to Constantinople, and appealed in person to the emperor. The synod condemned him by default.

While the bishops at Tyre were in the midst of their session, an urgent summons from the emperor called them to take part in the approaching festival at Jerusalem (Eus. V. C. iv.41 seq.; Socr. H. E. i.33 seq.; Soz. H. E. ii.26; Theod. H. E. i.29). It was the tricennalia of Constantine. No previous sovereign after Augustus, the founder of the empire, had reigned for thirty years. Constantine had a fondness for magnificent ceremonial, and here was a noble opportunity (V. C. iv.40, kairos eukairos). The occasion was marked by the dedication of Constantine's new and splendid basilica, built on the site of Calvary. The festival was graced by a series of orations from the principal persons present. In these Eusebius bore a conspicuous part, finding in this dedication festival a far more congenial atmosphere than in the intrigues of the synod at Tyre. He speaks of the assemblage at Tyre as a mere episode of the festival at Jerusalem (hodou de parergon). The emperor, he says, preparing for the celebration of this festival, was anxious to end the quarrels which rent the church. In doing so he was obeying the Lord's injunction, |Be reconciled to thy brother, and then go and offer thy gift| (cf. Soz. i.26). This view of the emperor's motive is entirely borne out by Constantine's own letter to the synod at Tyre. Eusebius was greatly impressed by the celebration; but Tillemont, who shews strong prejudice against Eusebius throughout, altogether misstates the case in saying that he |compares or even prefers this assembly to the council of Nicaea, striving to exalt it as much as he can, for the sake of effacing the glory of that great council,| etc. (vi. p.284). But Eusebius says distinctly that |after that first council| this was the greatest synod assembled by Constantine (V. C. iv.47); and so far from shewing any desire to depreciate the council of Nicaea, he cannot find language magnificent enough to sing its glories (iii.6 seq.).

Arius and Euzoius had presented a confession of faith to the emperor, seeking readmission to the church. The emperor was satisfied that this document was in harmony with the faith of Nicaea, and sent Arius and Euzoius to Jerusalem, requesting the synod to consider their confession of faith and restore them to communion. Arius and his followers were accordingly readmitted at Jerusalem. Of the bishops responsible for this act, some were hostile to Athanasius, others would regard it as an act of pacification. The stress which Eusebius lays on Constantine's desire to secure peace on this, as on all other occasions, suggests that that was a predominant idea in the writer's own mind, though perhaps not unmixed with other influences.

(iii) Synod of Constantinople. -- Athanasius had not fled to Constantinople in vain. Constantine desired pacification but was not insensible to justice; and the personal pleadings of Athanasius convinced him that justice had been outraged (Ap. c. Arian.86). The bishops at the dedication festival had scarcely executed the request, or command, of the emperor's first letter, when they received another written in a very different temper (ib.; Socr. H. E. i.34; Soz. H. E. ii.27). It was addressed |to the bishops that had assembled at Tyre|; described their proceedings as |tumultuous and stormy|; and summoned them without delay to Constantinople. The leaders of the Eusebian party alone obeyed; the rest retired to their homes. Among those who obeyed was Eusebius of Caesarea. Of the principal events which occurred at Constantinople, the banishment of Athanasius and the death of Arius, we need not speak here. But the proceedings of the synod then held there (a.d.336) have an important bearing on the literary history of Eusebius. The chief work of the synod was the condemnation of MARCELLUS, bp. of Ancyra, an uncompromising opponent of the Arians. He had written a book in reply to the Arian Asterius |the sophist,| in which his zeal against Arian tenets goaded him into expressions that had a rank savour of Sabellianism. The proceedings against him had commenced at Jerusalem and were continued at Constantinople, where he was condemned of Sabellianism, and deposed from his bishopric (Socr. H. E. i.36; Soz. H. E. ii.33). Eusebius is especially mentioned as taking part in this synod (Athan. Ap. c. Arian.87; cf. Eus. c. Marc. ii.4, p.115). Not satisfied with this, the dominant party urged Eusebius to undertake a refutation of the heretic. Two works against Marcellus were his response. Eusebius found also more congenial employment during his sojourn at Constantinople. The celebration of the emperor's tricennalia had not yet ended, and Eusebius delivered a panegyric which he afterwards appended to his Life of Constantine. The delivery of this oration may have been the chief motive which induced Eusebius to accompany the Arian bishops to Constantinople. It must have been during this same visit, though on an earlier day, that he delivered before the emperor his discourse on the church of the Holy Sepulchre, probably previously spoken also at the dedication itself. This oration has unfortunately not survived. It does not appear that Eusebius had any personal interview with Constantine before the council of Nicaea. Here, however, he stood high in the emperor's favour, as the prominent position assigned to him shews; and there seems thenceforward no interruption in their cordial relations. The emperor used to enter into familiar conversation with him, relating the most remarkable incidents in his career, such as the miraculous appearance of the cross in the skies (V. C. i.28), and the protection afforded by that emblem in battle (ii.9). He corresponded with him on various subjects, on one occasion asking him to see to the execution of fifty copies of the Scriptures for his new capital, and supplying him with the necessary means (iv.36); and he listened with patience, and even with delight, to the lengthy and elaborate orations which Eusebius delivered from time to time in his presence. Constantine praises his eulogist's gentleness or moderation (iii.60). Nor was Constantine the only member of the imperial family with whom Eusebius had friendly relations. The empress Constantia, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, wrote to him on a matter of religious interest. In his reply we are especially struck with the frankness of expostulation, almost of rebuke, with which he addresses her (Spicil. Solesm. i.383).

The great emperor breathed his last on May 22, a.d.337; and Eusebius died not later than the close of 339 or the beginning of 340. In Wright's Ancient Syrian Martyrology, which cannot date later than half a century after the event, |the commemoration of Eusebius bp. of Palestine| is placed on May 30. If this represents the day of his death, as probably it does, he must have died in 339, for the notices will hardly allow so late a date in the following year. His literary activity was unabated to the end. Four years at most can have elapsed between his last visit to Constantinople and his death. He must have been nearly 80 years old when the end came. Yet at this advanced age, and within this short period, he composed the Panegyric, the Life of Constantine, the treatise Against Marcellus, and the companion treatise On the Theology of the Church; probably he had in hand at the same time other unfinished works, such as the Theophania. There are no signs of failing mental vigour in these works. The two doctrinal treatises are perhaps his most forcible and lucid writings. The Panegyric and the Life of Constantine are disfigured by a too luxuriant rhetoric, but in vigour equal any of his earlier works. Of his death itself no record is left. Acacius, his successor, had been his pupil. Though more decidedly Arian in bias, he was a devoted admirer of his master (Soz. H. E. iii.2). He wrote a Life of Eusebius, and apparently edited some of his works.

Literary Works. -- The literary remains of Eusebius are a rich and, excepting the Chronicle and the Ecclesiastical History, a comparatively unexplored mine of study. They may be classed as: A. Historical; B. Apologetic; C. Critical and Exegetical; D. Doctrinal; E. Orations; F. Letters.

A. Historical. -- (1) Life of Pamphilus. -- Eusebius (Mart. Pal.11), speaking of his friend's martyrdom, refers to this work as follows: |The rest of the triumphs of his virtue, requiring a longer narration, we have already before this given to the world in a separate work in three books, of which his life is the subject.| He also refers to it 3 times in his History (H. E. i.32, vii.32, viii.13). The Life of Pamphilus was thus written before the History, and before the shorter ed. of --

(2) The Martyrs of Palestine. -- This work is extant in two forms, a shorter and a longer. The shorter is attached to the History, commonly between the 8th and 9th books.

The longer form is not extant entire in the original Greek. In the Bollandist Acta Sanctorum (Jun. t. i. p.64) Papebroch pub. for the first time in Greek, from a Paris MS. of the Metaphrast, an account of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and others, professedly |composed by Eusebius Pamphili.| It had appeared in a Latin version before. The Greek was reprinted by Fabricius, Hippolytus, ii. p.217. This is a fuller account of the incidents related in the Mart. Pal.11 attached to the History. Their common matter is expressed in the same words, or nearly so. Hence one must have been an enlargement or an abridgment of the other.

Nor can it reasonably be doubted that the shorter form of the Palestinian Martyrs is Eusebius's own. It retains those notices of the longer form in which Eusebius speaks in his own person; and, moreover, in the passages peculiar to this shorter form, Eusebius is evidently the speaker. Thus (c.11) he mentions having already written a special work in three books on the life of Pamphilus; and when recording the death of Silvanus, who had had his eyes put cut (c.13), mentions his own astonishment when he once heard him reading the Scriptures, as he supposed, from a book in church, but was told that he was blind and was repeating them by heart. Moreover, other incidental notices, inserted from time to time and having no place in the longer form, shew the knowledge of a contemporary and eyewitness.

The longer edition seems to be the original form. It is an independent work, apparently written not very long after the events. It betrays no other motive than to inform and edify the readers, more especially the Christians of Caesarea and Palestine, to whom it is immediately addressed. |our city of Caesarea| is an expression occurring several times (pp.4. twice, 25, 30). |This our country,| |this our city,| are analogous phrases (pp.8, 13).

In the shorter form the case is different. The writer does not localize himself in the same way. It is always |the city,| never |this city,| of Caesarea. The appeal to the Caesareans in recounting the miracle is left out (c.4). The hortatory beginning and ending are omitted, and the didactic portions abridged or excised. The shorter form thus appears to be part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors. The object would thus be the vindication of God's righteousness. This idea appears several times elsewhere in Eusebius, and he may have desired to embody it in a separate treatise.

(3) Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms. -- Of this work Eusebius was not the author, but merely, as the title suggests and as the notices require, the compiler and editor. The narratives of martyrdoms were, in the eyes of Eusebius, not only valuable as history but instructive as lessons (H. E. v. praef.). Hence he took pains to preserve authentic records of them, himself undertaking to record those of his own country, Palestine, at this time; while he left to others in different parts of the world to relate those |quae ipsi miserrima viderunt,| declaring that only thus could strict accuracy be attained (H. E. viii.13, with the whole context). But he was anxious also to preserve the records of past persecutions. Hence this collection of Maytyrologies. The epithet |ancient| (archaia) must be regarded as relative, applying to all prior to the |persecution of his own time| (ho kath' hemas diogmos, according to his favourite expression). He himself refers to this collection for the martyrdom of Polycarp and others at Smyrna under Antoninus Pius A.D.155 or 156 (iv.15), for the documents relating to the sufferers in Gaul under M. Aurelius A.D.177 (v.1, seq.), and for the defence of Apollonius under Commodus A.D.180-185 (v.21). But it would probably comprise any martyrdoms which occurred before the long peace that preceded the outbreak of the last persecution under Diocletian.

[(4.) Chronicle. -- This work may be described in words suggested by the author's own account of it at the beginning of his Eclogae Propheticae, as |chronological tables, to which is prefixed an epitome of universal history drawn from various sources.| The epitome occupies the first book, the tables the second. The tables exhibit in parallel columns the successions of the rulers of different nations, so that contemporary monarchs can be seen at a glance. Notes mark the years of the more remarkable historical events, these notes constituting an epitome of history. The interest which Christians felt in the study of comparative chronology arose from heathen opponents contrasting the antiquity of their rites with the novelty of the Christian religion. Christian apologists retorted by proving that the Grecian legislators and philosophers were very much later than the Hebrew legislator and later than the prophets who had testified of Christ and taught a religion of which Christianity was the legitimate continuation. In the Praeparatio Evangelica (x.9) Eusebius urges this, quoting largely from preceding writers who had proved the antiquity of the Jews, e.g. Josephus, Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, and especially Africanus. This last writer had made the synchronisms between sacred and profane history his special study, and his chronological work, now lost, gave Eusebius the model and, to a great extent, the materials for his own Chronicle.

The Greek of Eusebius's own work has been lost, and until recent times it was only known through the use made of it by successors, particularly Jerome, who translated it into Latin, enlarging the notices of Roman history and continuing it to his own time. In 1606 Scaliger published an edition of the Chronicle, in which he attempted to restore the Greek of Eusebius, collecting from Syncellus, Cedrenus, and other Greek chronologers, notices which he believed himself able, mainly by the help of Jerome's translation, to identify as copied from Eusebius; but his restoration of the first book, where he had but little guidance from Jerome, did not inspire confidence, and has been proved untrustworthy. An Armenian trans. of the Chronicle, pub. in 1818, enables us now to state the contents of bk. i.

After pleading that early Greek and even Hebrew chronology present many difficulties, Eusebius, in the first section, gives a sketch of Chaldee and Assyrian history, subjoining a table of Assyrian, Median, Lydian, and Persian kings, ending with the Darius conquered by Alexander. The authors he uses are Alexander Polyhistor, and, as known through him, Berosus; Abydenus, Josephus, Castor, Diodorus, and Cephalion. He notes the coincidences of these writers with Hebrew history and suggests that the incredible lengths assigned to reigns in the early Chaldee history may be reduced if the |sari,| said to be periods of 3,600 years, were in reality far shorter periods, and in like manner, following Africanus, that the Egyptian years may be in reality but months. An alternative suggestion in this first book is that some Egyptian dynasties may have been, not consecutive, but synchronous. The second section treats of Hebrew chronology, the secular authorities used being Josephus and Africanus. Eusebius notices the chronological difference between the Heb., LXX., and Samaritan texts, and conjectures that the Hebrews, to justify by patriarchal example their love of early marriages, systematically shortened the intervals between the birth of each patriarch and that of his first son. He gives other arguments which decide him in favour of the LXX, especially as it was the version used by our Lord and the apostles. In the period from the Deluge to the birth of Abraham, which Eusebius makes the initial point of his own tables, he follows the LXX, except that he omits the second Cainan, making 942 years; and thus placing the birth of Abraham in the year from the Creation 3184. He reckons 480 years between the Exodus and Solomon's temple, as in I. Kings. In the preface to his second book, he states that his predecessors had made Moses contemporary with Inachus, and 700 years earlier than the Trojan War. His own computation made Inachus contemporary with Jacob, and Moses with Cecrops, but he contends that this leaves Moses still nearly 400 years older than the capture of Troy, and older than Deucalion's Deluge, Phaethon's Conflagration, Bacchus, Aesculapius, Castor and Pollux, Hercules, Homer and the Seven Wise Men of Greece, and Pythagoras the first philosopher. Eusebius counts 442 years from the foundation of Solomon's temple to its destruction under Zedekiah. He reckons two prophetic periods of 70 years of captivity. One begins with the destruction of the temple, and ends with the 2nd year of Darius Hystaspis and the rebuilding of the temple under Zerubbabel. The other is from the first prophesying of Jeremiah in the 15th year of Josiah to the 1st year of Cyrus, when an altar was set up at Jerusalem and the foundations of the temple laid. In the tables Eusebius gives an alternative for this period, viz. from the 3rd year of Jehoiakim to the 19th of Cyrus. From the 2nd year of Darius, which he counts as the 1st year of the 65th olympiad, Eusebius counts 548 years to the preaching of our Lord and the 15th year of Tiberius, which he reckons as the 4th year of the 201st olympiad, and as the year 5228 from the creation of the world. There is every reason for thinking that more editions of the Chronicle than one were published by Eusebius in his lifetime. In its latest form it terminates with the Vicennalia of Constantine. Jerome says in his preface that as far as the taking of Troy his work was a mere translation of that of Eusebius; that from that date to the point at which the work of Eusebius closes, he added notices, from Suetonius and others, relating to Roman history; and that the conclusion from where Eusebius breaks off to his own time was entirely his own.

[G.S.]

(5) Ecclesiastical History. -- From many considerations it seems clear that the History was finished some time in a.d.324 or 325 -- before midsummer in the latter year, and probably some months earlier; and the earlier books even some years before this.

The work contains no indications that it was due to any suggestion from without, as some have supposed. If the author had been prompted to it by Constantine, he would hardly have been silent about the fact, for he is only too ready elsewhere to parade the flatteries of his imperial patron. Moreover, it was probably written in great measure, or at least the materials for it collected, before his relations with Constantine began. His own language rather suggests that it grew out of a previous work, the Chronicle.

He begins by enumerating the topics with which it is intended to deal: (1) the successions of the apostles with continuous chronological data from the Christian era to his own time; (2) the events of ecclesiastical history; (3) the most distinguished rulers, preachers, and writers in the church; (4) the teachers of heresy who, like |grievous wolves,| have ravaged the flock of Christ; (5) the retribution which had befallen the Jewish race; (6) the persecutions of the church and the victories of the martyrs and confessors, concluding with the great and final deliverance wrought by the Saviour in the author's own day. He prays for guidance, since he is entering upon an untrodden way, where he will find no footprints, though the works of predecessors may serve as beacon-lights here and there through the waste. He considers it absolutely necessary (anankaiotata) to undertake the task, because no one else before him had done so. The work, he concludes, must of necessity commence with the Incarnation and Divinity (oikonomias te kai theologias) of Christ, because from Him we all derive our name. Accordingly he proceeds to shew that Christianity is no new thing, but has its roots in the eternal past. The Word was with God before the beginning of creation. He was recognized and known by righteous men in all ages, especially among the Hebrews; His advent, even His very names, were foretold and glorified; His society -- the Christian church -- was the subject of prophecy, while the Christian type of life was never without examples since the race began (i.4, cf. ii.1). |After this necessary preparation| (meta ten deousan prokataskeuen, i.5), he proceeds to speak of the Incarnation, its chronology and synchronisms in external history, the Herodian kingdom, the Roman empire, the Jewish priesthood, including a discussion of the Saviour's genealogy; thus shewing that it came in the fulness of time as a realization of prophecy (cc.5-10). A chapter is devoted to the Baptist as the first herald (c.11), another to the appointment of the Twelve and the Seventy (c.12); a third to the mission sent by Christ Himself to Edessa, as recorded in the archives of that city (c.13). We are thus brought to the time of the Ascension, and the first book ends. The second comprises the preaching of the apostles to the destruction of Jerusalem, the writer's aim being not to repeat the accounts in the N.T., but to supplement them from external sources. The third book extends to the reign of Trajan, and covers the sub-apostolic age, ending with notices of Ignatius, Clement, and Papias. The fourth and fifth carry us to the close of the 2nd cent., including the Montanist, Quartodeciman, and Monarchian disputes. The sixth contains the period from the persecution of Severus (a.d.203) to that of Decius (a.d.250), the central figure being Origen, of whom a full account is given. The seventh continues the narrative to the outbreak of the great persecution under Diocletian, and is largely composed of quotations from Dionysius of Alexandria, as the preface states. It is significant that the last forty years of this period, though contemporary with the historian, are dismissed in a single long chapter. It was a period of very rapid but silent progress, when the church for the first time was in the happy condition of having no history. The eighth book gives the history of the persecution of Diocletian till the |palinode,| the edict of Galerius (a.d.311). The ninth relates the sufferings of the Eastern Christians until the victory over Maxentius at the Milvian bridge in the West, and the death of Maximin in the East, left Constantine and Licinius sole emperors. The tenth and last book, dedicated to Paulinus, gives an account of the rebuilding of the churches, the imperial decrees favourable to the Christians, the subsequent rebellion of Licinius, and the victory of Constantine by which he was left sole master of the Roman world. A panegyric of Constantine closes the whole.

Eusebius thus had a truly noble conception of the work which he had undertaken. It was nothing less than the history of a society which stood in an intimate relation to the Divine Logos Himself, a society whose roots struck down into the remotest past and whose destinies soared into the eternal future. He felt, moreover, that he himself lived at the great crisis in its history. Now at length it seemed to have conquered the powers of this world. This was the very time, therefore, to place on record the incidents of its past career. Moreover, he had great opportunities, such as were not likely to fall to another. In his own episcopal city, perhaps in his own official residence, Pamphilus had got together the largest Christian library yet collected. Not far off, at Jerusalem, was another valuable library, collected a century earlier by the bp. Alexander, and especially rich in the correspondence of men of letters and rulers in the church, |from which library,| writes Eusebius, |we too have been able to collect together the materials for this undertaking which we have in hand| (H. E. vi.20). Moreover, he had been trained in a highly efficient school of literary industry under Pamphilus, while his passion for learning has rarely been equalled, perhaps never surpassed.

The execution of his work, however, falls far short of the conception. The faults indeed are so patent as to have unjustly obscured the merits, for it is withal a noble monument of literary labour. We must remember his plea for indulgence, as one setting foot upon new ground, |nullius ante trita solo|; and as he had no predecessor, so he had no successor. Rufinus, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, all commenced where he ended. The most bitter of his theological adversaries were forced to confess their obligations to him, and to speak of his work with respect. If we reflect what a blank would be left in our knowledge of this important chapter in history if the narrative of Eusebius were blotted out, we shall appreciate our enormous debt of gratitude to him.

Two points require consideration: (1) the range and adequacy of his materials, and (2) the use made of them.

(1) The range of materials is astonishing when we consider that Eusebius was a pioneer. Some hundred works, several of them very lengthy, are either directly cited or referred to as read. In many instances he would read an entire treatise for the sake of one or two historical notices, and must have searched many others without finding anything to serve his purpose, thus involving enormous labour. This then is his strongest point. Yet even here deficiencies may be noted. He very rarely quotes the works of heresiarchs themselves, being content to give their opinions through the medium of their opponents' refutations. A still greater defect is his considerable ignorance of Latin literature and of Latin Christendom generally. Thus he knows nothing of Tertullian's works, except the Apologeticum, which he quotes (ii.2, 25, iii.20, 33, v.5) from a bad Greek translation (e.g. ii.25, where the translator, being ignorant of the Latin idiom cum maxime, destroys the sense). Of Tertullian himself he gives no account, but calls him a |Roman.| Pliny's letter he only knows through Tertullian (iii.33) and he is unacquainted with the name of the province which Pliny governed. Of Hippolytus again he has very little information to communicate, and cannot even tell the name of his see (vi.20, 22). His account of Cyprian, too, is extremely meagre (vi.43, vii.3), though Cyprian was for some years the most conspicuous figure in Western Christendom, and died (a.d.258) not very long before his own birth. He betrays the same ignorance with regard to the bps. of Rome. His dates here, strangely enough, are widest of the mark when close upon his own time. Thus he assigns to Xystus II. (a.d.258) eleven years (vii.27) instead of months; to Eutychianus (a.d.283) ten months (vii.32) instead of nearly nine years; to Gaius, whom he calls his own contemporary, and who died long after he had arrived at manhood (a.d.296), |about fifteen years| (vii.32) instead of twelve. He seems to have had a corrupt list and did not possess the knowledge necessary to correct it. With the Latin language he appears to have had no thorough acquaintance, though he sometimes ventured to translate Latin documents (iv.8, 9; cf. viii.27). But he must not be held responsible for the blunders in the versions of others, e.g. of Tertullian's Apologeticum. The translations of state documents in the later books may be the semi-official Greek versions such as Constantine was in the habit of employing persons to make (V. C. iv.32). See on this subject Heinichen's note on H. E. iv.8.

(2) Under the second head the most vital question is the sincerity of Eusebius. Did he tamper with his materials or not? The sarcasm of Gibbon (Decline and Fall, c. xvi.) is well known: |The gravest of the ecclesiastical historians, Eusebius himself, indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion.| The passages to which he refers (H. E. viii.2; Mart. Pal.12) do not bear out this imputation. There is no indirectness about them, but on the contrary they deplore, in the most emphatic terms, the evils which disgraced the church, and they represent the persecution under Diocletian as a just retribution for these wrongdoings. The ambitions, intriguing for office, factious quarrels, cowardly denials and shipwrecks of the faith -- |evil piled upon evil| (kaka kakois epiteichizontes) -- are denounced in no measured language. Eusebius contents himself with condemning these sins and shortcomings in general terms, without entering into details; declaring his intention of confining himself to topics profitable (pros opheleias) to his own and future generations. This treatment may be regarded as too great a sacrifice to edification; but it leaves no imputation on his honesty. Nor again can the special charges against his honour as a narrator be sustained. There is no ground whatever for the surmise that Eusebius forged or interpolated the passage from Josephus relating to our Lord, quoted in H. E. i.11, though Heinichen (iii. pp.623 seq., Melet. ii.) is disposed to entertain the charge. The passage is contained in all our extant MSS., and there is sufficient evidence that other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of Josephus long before this time (see Orig. c. Cels. i.47, Delarue's note). Another interpolation in Josephus which Eusebius quotes (ii.23) was certainly known to Origen (l.c.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death (H. E. ii.10) was already in some texts of Josephus (Ant. xix.8, 2). The manner in which Eusebius deals with his very numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, sufficiently vindicates him from this unjust charge.

Moreover, Eusebius is generally careful to collect the best evidence accessible, and also to distinguish between different kinds of evidence. |Almost every page witnesses to the zeal with which he collected testimonies from writers who lived at the time of the events which he describes. For the sixth and seventh books he evidently rejoices to be able to use for the foundation of his narrative the contemporary letters of Dionysius; 'Dionysius, our great bp. of Alexandria,' he writes, 'will again help me by his own words in the composition of my seventh book of the history, since he relates in order the events of his own time in the letters which he has left' (vii. praef.). . . . In accordance with this instinctive desire for original testimony, Eusebius scrupulously distinguishes facts which rest on documentary from those which rest on oral evidence. Some things he relates on the authority of a 'general' (iii.11, 36) or 'old report' (iii.19, 20) or from tradition (i.7, ii.9, vi.2, etc.). In the lists of successions he is careful to notice where written records failed him. 'I could not,' he says, 'by any means find the chronology of the bps. of Jerusalem preserved in writing; thus much only I received from written sources, that there were fifteen bishops in succession up to the date of the siege under Hadrian, etc.' (iv.5).| [W.] |There is nothing like hearing the actual words| of the writer, he says again and again (i.23, iii.32, vii.23; cf. iv.23), when introducing a quotation. His general sincerity and good faith seem, therefore, clear. But his intellectual qualifications were in many respects defective. His credulity, indeed, has frequently been much exaggerated. |Undoubtedly he relates many incidents which may seem to us incredible, but, when he does so, he gives the evidence on which they are recommended to him. At one time it is the express testimony of some well-known writer, at another a general belief, at another an old tradition, at another his own observation (v.7, vi.9, vii.17, 18).| [W.] In the most remarkable passage bearing on the question he recounts his own experience during the last persecution in Palestine (Mart. Pal.9). |There can be no doubt about the occurrence which Eusebius here describes, and it does not appear that he can be reproached for adding the interpretation which his countrymen placed upon it. What he vouches for we can accept as truth; what he records as a popular comment leaves his historical veracity and judgment unimpaired.| [W.] Even Gibbon (c. xvi.) describes the character of Eusebius as |less tinctured with credulity, and more practised in the arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries.| A far more serious drawback is the loose and uncritical spirit in which he sometimes deals with his materials. This shews itself in diverse ways. (a) He is not always to be trusted in his discrimination of genuine and spurious documents. As regards the canon of Scripture indeed he takes special pains; lays down certain principles which shall guide him in the production of testimonies; and on the whole adheres to these principles with fidelity (see Contemp. Rev. Jan.1875, pp.169 seq.). Yet elsewhere he adduces as genuine the correspondence of Christ and Abgarus (i.13), though never treating it as canonical Scripture. The unworthy suspicion that Eusebius forged this correspondence which he asserted to be a translation of a Syriac original found in the archives of Edessa has been refuted by the discovery and publication of the original Syriac (The Doctrine of Addai the Apostle with an English Translation and Notes by G. Phillips, Lond.1876; see Zahn, Götting. Gel. Anz. Feb.6, 1877, pp.161 seq.; Contemp. Rev. May 1877, p.1137; a portion of this work had been published some time before in Cureton's Ancient Syriac Documents, pp.6 seq., Lond.1864). Not his honesty, but his critical discernment was at fault. Yet we cannot be severe upon him for maintaining a position which, however untenable, has commended itself to Cave (H. L. i. p.2), Grabe (Spic. Patr. i. pp.1 seq.), and other writers of this stamp, as defensible. This, moreover, is the most flagrant instance of
misappreciation. On the whole, considering the great mass of spurious documents current in his age, we may well admire his discrimination, as e.g. in the case of the numerous Clementine writings (iii.16, 38), alleging the presence or absence of external testimony for his decisions. Pearson's eulogy (Vind. Ign. i.8) on Eusebius, though exaggerated, is not undeserved. He is generally a safe guide in discriminating between the genuine and the spurious. (b) He is often careless in his manner of quoting. His quotations from Irenaeus, for instance, lose much of their significance, even for his own purpose, by abstraction from their context (v.8). His quotations from Papias (iii.39) and from Hegesippus (iii.32, iv.22) are tantalizing by their brevity, for the exact bearing of the words could only have been learnt from their context. But, except in the passages from Josephus (where the blame, as we have seen, belongs elsewhere), the quotations themselves are given with fair accuracy. (c) He draws hasty and unwarranted inferences from his authorities, and is loose in interpreting their bearing. This is his weakest point as a critical historian. Thus he quotes Josephus respecting the census of Quirinus and the insurrections of Theudas and of Judas the Galilean, as if he agreed in all respects with the accounts in St. Luke, and does not notice the chronological difficulties (i.5, 9; ii.11). He adduces the Jewish historian as a witness to the assignment of a tetrarchy to Lysanias (i.9), though in fact Josephus says nothing about this Lysanias in the passage in question, but elsewhere mentions an earlier person bearing the name as ruler of Abilene (Ant. xx.7.1; B. J. ii.11.5). He represents this same writer as stating that Herod Antipas was banished to Vienne (i.11), whereas Josephus sends Archelaus to Vienne (B. J. ii.7.3) and Herod Antipas to Lyons (Ant. xviii.7.2) or Spain (B. J. ii.9.6). He quotes Philo's description of the Jewish Therapeutae, as if it related to Christian ascetics (ii.17). He gives, side by side, the contradictory accounts of the death of James the Just in Josephus and Hegesippus, as if they tallied (ii.23). He hopelessly confuses the brothers M. Aurelius and L. Verus (v. prooem., 4, 5) from a misunderstanding of his documents, though in the Chronicle (ii. p.170) he is substantially correct with regard to these emperors. Many other examples of such carelessness might be produced. (d) He is very desultory in his treatment, placing in different parts of his work notices bearing on the same subject. He relates a fact, or quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season, according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental connexion. |Nothing can illustrate this characteristic better than the manner in which he deals with the canon of the N.T. After mentioning the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul at Rome, he proceeds at once (iii.3) without any further preface to enumerate the writings attributed to them respectively, distinguishing those which were generally received by ancient tradition from those which were disputed. At the same time he adds a notice of the Shepherd, because it had been attributed by some to the Hermas mentioned by St. Paul. After this he resumes his narrative, and then having related the last labours of St. John, he gives an account of the writings attributed to him (iii.24), promising a further discussion of the Apocalypse, which, however, does not appear. This catalogue is followed by some fragmentary discussions on the Gospels, to which a general classification of all the books claiming to have apostolic authority is added. When this is ended, the history suddenly goes back to a point in the middle of the former book (ii.15). Elsewhere he repeats the notice of an incident for the sake of adding some new detail, yet so as to mar the symmetry of his work.| [W.] Examples of this fault occur in the accounts of the first preaching at Edessa (i.13, ii.1), of the writings of Clement of Rome (iii.16, 38; iv.22, 23, etc.), of the daughters of Philip (iii.30, 39; cf. v.17, 24), etc.

(6) Life of Constantine, in four books. -- The date of this work is fixed within narrow limits. It was written after the death of the great emperor (May 337) and after his three sons had been declared Augusti (Sept.337) -- see iv.68; and Eusebius himself died not later than A.D.340. Though not professing to be such, it is to some extent a continuation of the Ecclesiastical History. As such it is mentioned by Socrates (H. E. i.1), to whom, as to other historians, it furnishes important materials for the period. For the council of Nicaea especially, and for some portions of the Arian controversy, it is a primary source of information of the highest value. As regards the emperor himself, it is notoriously one-sided. The verdict of Socrates will not be disputed. The author, he says, |has devoted more thought to the praises of the emperor and to the grandiloquence of language befitting a panegyric, as if he were pronouncing an encomium, than to the accurate narrative of the events which took place.| But there is no ground for suspecting him of misrepresenting the facts given, and with the qualification stated above, his biography has the highest value. It is a vivid picture of certain aspects of a great personality, painted by one familiarly acquainted with him, who had access to important documents. It may even be set down to the credit of Eusebius that his praises of Constantine are much louder after his death than during his lifetime. In this respect he contrasts favourably with Seneca. Nor shall we do justice to Eusebius unless we bear in mind the extravagant praises which even heathen panegyrists lavished on the great Christian emperor before his face, as an indication of the spirit of the age. But after all excuses made, this indiscriminate praise of Constantine is a reproach from which we should gladly have held Eusebius free.

B. Apologetic. -- (7) Against Hierocles. -- Hierocles was governor in Bithynia, and used his power ruthlessly to embitter the persecution which he is thought to have instigated (Lactant. Div. Inst. v.2; Mort. Pers.16; see Mason, Persecution of Diocletian, pp.58, 108). Not satisfied with assailing the Christians from the tribunal, he attacked them also with his pen. The title of his work seems to have been ho Philalethes, The Lover of Truth. It was a ruthless assault on Christianity, written in a biting style. Its main object was to expose the contradictions of the Christian records. Eusebius, however, confines himself to one point -- the comparison of Apollonius, as described in his Life by Philostratus, with our Saviour, to the disparagement of the latter. There is much difference of opinion whether Philostratus himself intended to set up Apollonius as a rival to the Christ of the Gospels [[205]Apollonius of Tyana], but Hierocles at all events turned his romance to this use.

Eusebius refutes his opponent with great moderation, and generally with good effect. He allows that Apollonius was a wise and virtuous man, but refuses to concede the higher claims advanced on his behalf. He shews that the work of Philostratus was not based on satisfactory evidence; that the narrative is full of absurdities and contradictions; and that the moral character of Apollonius as therein portrayed is far from perfect. He maintains that the supernatural incidents, if they actually occurred, might have been the work of demons. In conclusion (§§ 46-48) he refutes and denounces the fatalism of Apollonius, as alone sufficient to discredit his wisdom.

(8) Against Porphyry, an elaborate work in 25 books: Hieron. Ep.70 ad Magn. § 3 (i. p.427, Vallarsi); Vir. Ill.81. -- No part of this elaborate refutation has survived. Yet we may form some notion of its contents from the Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica, in considerable portions of which Eusebius obviously has Porphyry in view, even where he does not name him. To Jerome and Socrates the refutation seemed satisfactory. Philostorgius (H. E. viii.14) preferred the similar work of Apollinaris to it, as also to the earlier refutation of Methodius, but himself added another reply to Porphyry (H. E. x.10). All the four refutations have alike perished, with the work which gave rise to them.

(9) Praeparatio Evangelica. -- So Eusebius himself calls a treatise, which more strictly ought to have been called Praeparatio Demonstrationis Evangelicae, for it is an introductory treatise leading up to --

(10) The Demonstratio Evangelica. -- These two treatises, in fact, are parts of one great work. They are both dedicated to Theodotus, an adherent of the Arian party, who was bp. of Laodicea for some thirty years.

In the absence of more direct testimony, we may infer that these works were begun during the persecution, but not concluded till some time after. The Preparation is extant entire, and comprises 15 books. The Demonstration, on the other hand, is incomplete. It consisted of 20 books, of which only the first ten are extant in the MSS. The Preparation sketches briefly what the Gospel is, and then adverts to the common taunt that the Christians accept their religion by faith without investigation. The whole work is an answer to this taunt. The object of the Preparation is to justify the Christians in transferring their allegiance from the religion and philosophy of the Greeks to the sacred books of the Hebrews. The object of the Demonstration is to shew from those sacred books themselves that Christians did right in not stopping short at the religious practices and beliefs of the Jews, but in adopting a different mode of life. Thus the Preparation is an apology for Christianity as against the Gentiles, while the Demonstration defends it as against the Jews, and |yet not,| he adds, |against the Jews, nay, far from it, but rather for the Jews, if they would learn wisdom.|

In the first three books of the Preparation he attacks the mythology of the heathen, exposing its absurdity, and refutes the physiological interpretations put upon the myths; in the next three he discusses the oracles, and as connected therewith the sacrifices to demons and the doctrine of fate; in the third three explains the bearing of |the Hebrew Oracles,| and adduces the testimony of heathen writers in their favour; in bks. x. xi. xii, and xiii. he remarks on the plagiarisms of the Greek philosophers from the Hebrews, dwelling on the priority of the Hebrew Scriptures, and shews how all that is best in Greek teaching and speculation agrees with them; in bk. xiv. he points to the contradictions among Greek philosophers, shewing how the systems opposed to Christian belief have been condemned by the wisest Gentile philosophers themselves; and lastly, in bk. xv., he exposes the falsehoods and errors of the Greek systems of philosophy, more especially of the Peripatetics, Stoics, and materialists of all schools. He claims to have thus given a complete answer to those who charge Christians with transferring their allegiance from Hellenism to Hebraism blindly and without knowledge. In the Demonstration, bks. i. and ii. are introductory (iii.1.1, ton prolegomenon). In bk. i. a sketch is given of the Gospel teaching and reasons alleged why Christians, while adopting the Hebrew Oracles, should depart from the Jewish mode of life; a distinction being drawn between Hebraism, the religion of all godly men from the beginning, and Judaism, the temporary and special system of the Jews, so that Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a departure from the latter. In bk. ii. testimonies from the prophets shew that the two great phenomena of the Christian Church had been long foretold -- the general ingathering of the Gentiles and the general falling away of the Jews -- so that the Christians |were only laying claim to their own| (iii.1.1). Bk. iii. begins the main subject of the treatise. He promises to speak of the humanity of Christ, as corresponding to the predictions of the prophets; but the topics are introduced in a desultory way (e.g. that Christ was not a sorcerer, that the Apostles were not deceivers, etc.) without any very obvious connexion with the main theme. Bks. iv. and v. pass on to the divinity of Christ, both as the Son and as the Logos (see v. prooem.1.2), this likewise having been announced by the prophets. From bk. vi. onward to the end he treats of the Incarnation and life (epidemia) of our Lord as a fulfilment of prophecy, and of the manner of Christ's appearing, the place of His birth, His parentage and genealogy, the time of His advent and His works as in like manner foretold. In bk. x., the last which is extant, he reaches the Passion, treating of the traitor Judas and the incidents of the Crucifixion. What were the topics of the remaining ten books we have no data for determining, but may conjecture with Stein (p.102) that they dealt with the burial, resurrection, and ascension, and perhaps also with the foundation of the Christian church and the Second Advent. The extant fragment of bk. xv. relates to the four kingdoms of Daniel ii. Jerome (Comm. in Hos. Praef. Op. vi. p.18) speaks of Eusebius as |discussing some matters respecting the prophet Hosea| in bk. xviii. This great apologetic work exhibits the merits and defects which we find elsewhere in Eusebius; the same greatness of conception marred by inadequacy of execution, the same profusion of learning combined with inability to control his materials, which we have seen in his History. The topics are not kept distinct; yet this is probably the most important apologetic work of the early church. Its frequent, forcible, and true conceptions, more especially on the theme of |God in history,| arrest our attention now, and must have impressed his contemporaries still more strongly; while in learning and comprehensiveness it is without a rival. It exhibits the same wide acquaintance with Greek profane writers which the History exhibits with Christian literature. The number of writers quoted or referred to is astonishing (see Fabric. Bibl. Graec. vii. p.346), the names of some being only known to us through Eusebius, while of several others he has preserved large portions not otherwise extant. He quotes not less than 21 works of Plato, and gives more than 50 quotations from the Laws alone. The impression produced by this mass of learning led Scaliger to call the work |divini commentarii,| and Cave |opus profecto nobilissimum| (H. L. i. p.178). An admirable ed. of the Preparatio was pub. in 1903 at the Oxford Press under the learned and accurate editorship of the late Dr. Gifford, with trans. and notes.

(11) The Praeparatio Ecclesiastica (Ekklesiastike Proparaskeue) is not extant, nor is (12) the Demonstratio Ecclesiastica (Ekklesiastike Apodeixis), but both are mentioned by Photius (Bibl.11, 12.) The names suggest that these two works aimed at doing for the society what the Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evangelica do for the doctrines of which the society is the depositary.

(13) Two Books of Objection and Defence only known from Photius (Bibl.13).

(14) The Divine Manifestation (Theophaneia), in five books, was long supposed to be lost, but fragments of the Greek original were published by Mai from Vatican MSS. in his Script. Vet. Nov. Coll. i. (1831), viii. (1833), and in 1842 the work was printed entire in a Syriac version by Dr. S. Lee, who in 1843 pub. an Eng. trans. with intro and notes (Eusebius, bp. of Caesarea, on the Theophania, etc., Camb.1843). By the aid of this version Mai (a.d.1847) in his Bibl. Nov. Patr. iv. p.310 (cf. p.110) rearranged his Greek fragments.

The subject is, as the name Theophania suggests, the manifestation of God in the Incarnation of the Divine Word. The contents are: (i) An account of the subject and the recipients of the revelation. The doctrine of the Word of God is insisted upon, His person and working set forth. Polytheist and pantheist are alike at fault. The Word is essentially one. His relation to creation, and especially to man, and the pre-eminence, characteristics, destiny, and fall of man are dealt with. (ii) The necessity of the revelation. The human race was degraded by gross idolatry with its accompanying immoralities. The philosophers could not rescue it. Plato had the clearest sense of the truth, yet even he was greatly at fault. Meanwhile the demons of polytheism had maddened mankind, as shewn by human sacrifices and the prevalence of wars. The demons, too, had shewn their powerlessness; they could not defend their temples or foresee their overthrow. (iii) The proof of the revelation. Its excellency and power is seen in its effects. For this it was necessary that the Word should be incarnate, put to death, and rise again. The change which has come over mankind in consequence is set forth. (iv) The proof of the revelation, from the fulfilment of Christ's words -- His prophecies respecting the extension of His kingdom, the trials of His church, the destinies of His servants, and the fate of the Jews. (v) The common heathen objection that Christ was a sorcerer and a deceiver, achieving His results by magic, is answered.

The place of writing of the Theophania is Caesarea (iv.6), and it was plainly written after the triumph of Constantine and the restoration of peace to the church. The persecution is over, and the persecutors have met with their punishment (iii.20, v.52). Polytheism is fast waning, and Christianity is spreading everywhere (ii.76, iii.79).

(15) On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients. -- This lost treatise is mentioned in Praep. Ev. vii.8.29. It is doubtless the same work to which St. Basil refers (de Spir. Sanct.29, Op. iii. p.61) as Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. It would seem to have been an apologetic work, as it seems to have aimed at accounting for the polygamy of the patriarchs and the Jews generally, and reconciling it with the ascetic life, which in his own time was regarded as the true ideal of Christian teaching. This problem occurs again and again in his extant apologetic writings. In the reference in the Praeparatio Eusebius speaks of having discussed in this work the notices of the lives of the patriarchs and |their philosophic endurance and self-discipline,| whether by way of direct narrative or of allegorical suggestion.

C. Critical and Exegetical -- i.e. all works directed primarily to the criticism and elucidation of the Scriptures.

(16) Biblical Texts. -- In his earlier years Eusebius was occupied in conjunction with Pamphilus in the production of correct Greek texts of the O.T. A notice of his later years shews him engaged in a similar work (V. C. iv.36, 37). The emperor writes to Eusebius, asking him to provide 50 copies of the Scriptures for use in the churches of Constantinople, where the Christian population had largely multiplied. The manuscripts must be easily legible and handy for use, written on carefully prepared parchment, and transcribed by skilful caligraphers. He has already written, he adds, to the procurator-general (katholikos) of the district (tes dioikeseos), charging him to furnish Eusebius with the necessary appliances and has placed at his disposal two public waggons to convey the manuscripts, when complete, to the new metropolis. Eusebius executes the commission. The manuscripts were arranged, he tells us, in ternions and quaternions (trissa kai tetrassa), and carefully prepared at great cost. The emperor wrote expressing his satisfaction with them.

(17) Sections and Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus Prefixed. -- Eusebius explains the origin and method of these sections and canons in the prefatory letter. Ammonius of Alexandria (c.220) had constructed a Harmony or Diatessaron of the Gospels. He took St. Matthew as his standard, and placed side by side with it the parallel passages from the other three. The work of Ammonius suggested to Eusebius the plan which he adopted, but Eusebius desired to preserve the continuity of all the narratives. He therefore divided each gospel separately into sections, which he numbered continuously, and constructed a table of ten canons, containing lists of passages: canon i, common to all the four evangelists; canon ii, common to Matthew, Mark, Luke; canon iii, common to Matthew, Luke, John; canon iv, common to Matthew, Mark, John; canon v, common to Matthew and Luke; canon vi, common to Matthew and Mark; canon vii, common to Matthew and John; canon viii, common to Luke and Mark; canon ix, common to Luke and John; canon x, passages peculiar to a single evangelist, so that this last canon contains four separate lists. The sections of the several gospels were numbered in black, and beneath each such number was a second number in vermilion, specifying the canon to which the section belonged. By turning to the canon so specified, the reader would see the numbers of the parallel sections in the other evangelists. For the history of the sections and canons in the MSS. see Scrivener's Introd. to the Criticism of the N. T., pp.54 seq. and passim. The sections and canons are marked in many editions of the Gk. Test., e.g. those of Tischendorf and Tregelles.

(18) Under the head of Biblical exegesis may be ranged several togographical works undertaken at the instance of Paulinus, bp. of Tyre. -- (a) Interpretation of the Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures; (b) Chorography of Ancient Judaea, with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes; (c) A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple. This was accompanied with memoirs relating to the different localities. (d) On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture, entitled in the head of Jerome's version de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum, but elsewhere (Vir. Ill.81) Topica. The first three, which perhaps should be regarded as parts of the same work, are mentioned in the preface to the fourth, which alone is extant. All were written at the instance of Paulinus, to whom (d) is dedicated. This last professes to give alphabetically |the designations of the cities and villages mentioned in Holy Scripture in their original language,| with a description of the locality and the modern names. The names are transliterated with various success from the Hebrew. The value of this treatise arises from the close acquaintance which Eusebius had with the geography of Palestine in his own day. The work had already been translated into Latin by some unskilful hand before Jerome's time, but so unsatisfactorily that he undertook a new version. He omitted some important notices and made several changes, justified by his personal knowledge of Palestine.

(19) On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets. -- This work contains a brief account of the several prophets and the subjects of their prophecies, beginning with the minor prophets and following the order of the LXX.

(20) In Psalmos, a continuous commentary on the Psalms, which stands in antiquity and intrinsic merit in the first rank of patristic commentaries. The historical bearing of the several psalms is generally treated sensibly; the theological and mystical interpretations betray the extravagance common to patristic exegesis. The value of the work is largely increased by frequent extracts from the Hexaplaric versions and by notices respecting the text and history of the Psalter. The author possessed some acquaintance with Hebrew, though not always sufficient to prevent mistakes. This commentary had a great reputation, and was translated into Latin within a very few years of its publication by Eusebius of Vercellae.

(21) Commentary on Isaiah. -- This work exhibits the same characteristics as the Commentary on the Psalms. Jerome is largely indebted to Eusebius, whom he sometimes translates almost word for word without acknowledgment. Eusebius occasionally inserts interesting traditions on the authority of a Hebrew teacher: e.g. that Shebna became high-priest and betrayed the people to Sennacherib; that Hezekiah was seized with sickness for not singing God's praises, like Moses and Deborah, after his victory. Sometimes he gives Christian traditions: e.g. that Judas Iscariot was of the tribe of Ephraim. This commentary is mentioned by Procopius in his preface, and is freely used by him and by later Greek commentators.

(22) Commentary on St. Luke's Gospel. -- Not mentioned by Jerome or Photius. Some extracts remain.

(23) Commentary on I. Corinthians. -- Such a work seems to be implied by Jerome's language, Ep. xlix., though he does not mention it in his Catalogue.

(24) Commentaries on other Books of Scripture. -- Extracts are given from, or mention is made of, commentaries on Proverbs, Song of Songs, Daniel, Hebrews, and several other books (see Fabric. op. cit. p.399). It is doubtful, however, whether such extracts (even when genuine) are from continuous commentaries or from exegetical or dogmatical works.

(25) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels. -- This work consists of two parts, really separate works, and quoted as such: (i) Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of the Saviour, addressed to Stephanus; (ii) Questions and Solutions concerning the Passion and Resurrection of the Saviour, addressed to Marinus. The difficulties do not always turn upon
discrepancies -- e.g. he discusses the question why Thamar is mentioned, and difficulties with respect to Bathsheba and Ruth. But the discrepancies occupy a sufficiently large space to give the name to the whole. The work exhibits the characteristic hesitation of Eusebius in a somewhat aggravated form. Alternative solutions are frequently offered, and he does not decide between them. But it is suggestive and full of interest. It is valuable also as preserving large fragments of Africanus, besides some important notices, such as the absence of Mark xvi.9-16 from the most numerous and best MSS. From this storehouse of information later harmonists plundered freely, often without acknowledgment.

D. Doctrinal. -- (26) General Elementary Introduction. -- Five fragments of this work have been published by Mai. All deal with analogous topics, having reference to general principles of ethics, etc. It seems to have been a general introduction to theology, and its contents were very miscellaneous, as the extant remains shew.

(27) Prophetical Extracts. -- This work contains prophetical passages from O.T. relating to our Lord's person and work, with explanatory comments, and comprises four books, of which the first is devoted to the historical books, the second to the Psalms, the third to the remaining poetical books and the other prophets, the fourth to Isaiah. The author explains that his main object is to shew that the prophets spoke of Jesus Christ as the pre-existent Word, Who is |a second cause of the universe and God and Lord,| and that they predicted His two advents. Thus the personality of the Logos is here the leading idea in his treatment of the prophecies.

(28) Defence of Origen. -- This was the joint work of Pamphilus and Eusebius. The original has perished, but the first book survives in the translation of Rufinus (printed in Origen, Op. iv. App. pp.17 seq. Delarue). Eusebius (H. E. vi.3) says that the work was undertaken to refute |captious detractors|; probably referring especially to Methodius, who had written two works against Origen (Hieron. Vir. Ill.93; Socr. H. E. vi.13) and was attacked by name in the sixth book (Hieron. c. Rufin. i.11). It was dedicated to the confessors of Palestine, especially Patermuthius (Phot. Bibl.118), who was martyred the year after Pamphilus (Eus. Mart. Pal.13). The first book contains an exposition of Origen's principles, especially of his doctrines respecting the Trinity and the Incarnation; then nine special charges against him are refuted, relating to the nature of Christ, the resurrection of the dead, metempsychosis, etc. In one of the later books the doctrine of fatalism was discussed (Rufin. Apol. i. ii, in Hieron. Op. ii. p.582). Elsewhere also it was shewn that Origen in his mystical explanation of Adam and Eve, as referring to Christ and the church, only followed the traditional interpretation (Socr. H. E. iii.7). In the same spirit precedents were quoted for his doctrines of the pre-existence of the soul and the restitution of all things (Anon. Synod. Ep.198). The Apology also contained a full account of the life of Origen (Phot. Bibl.118). Eusebius himself refers to bk. ii. for accounts of the controversy about Origen's ordination to the priesthood and his contributions to sacred letters (H. E. vi.23), and to bk. vi. for the letters which Origen wrote to Fabianus and others in defence of his orthodoxy (ib.36), and to the work generally for the part taken by Origen in theological controversy (ib.33). Socrates (H. E. iv.27) states that the panegyric of Gregory Thaumaturgus on Origen was given in this Apology.

(29) Against Marcellus, bp. of Ancyra, in two books. -- The occasion of writing is explained by Eusebius himself (c. Marc. ii.4, pp.55 seq.). Marcellus had been condemned for Sabellianism, and deposed by a synod of Constantinople (a.d.336), composed chiefly of the Arian friends of Eusebius. This work was undertaken at the wish of these friends to justify the decision. Certain persons considered that Marcellus had been unfairly treated, and Eusebius, being partly responsible for the decision, felt bound to uphold its justice. The work aims simply at exposing the views of Marcellus. [[206]Marcellus (4).]

(30) On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus, in three books. -- Eusebius had at first thought it sufficient merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, leaving them to condemn themselves. But on reflection, fearing lest some might be drawn away |from the theology of the church| by their very length and pretentiousness, he undertook to refute them, and to shew that no single Scripture favours the view of Marcellus, but that, according to the approved interpretations, all Scripture is against him. Having done this, he will expound the true theology respecting our Saviour, as it has been handed down in the church from the beginning. Thus, as explained by its author, the aim of this second treatise is refutation, as that of the first was exposure. The first was mainly personal, the second is chiefly dogmatical.

The two treatises were first edited by bp. R. Montague (Montacutius) with trans. and notes (Paris, 1628) at the end of the Demonstratio, and this ed. was reprinted (Lips.1688). The best ed. is that of Gaisford (Oxf.1852), where they are in the same vol. with the work Against Hierocles. He revised the text and reprinted the trans. and notes of Montague. The fragments of Marcellus are collected by Rettberg (Marcelliana, Götting.1794). The monographs on Marcellus, especially Zahn's M. von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867), are useful aids.

(31) On the Paschal Festival. -- Eusebius (Vit. Const. iv.35, 36) states that he addressed to Constantine |a mystical explanation of the significance of the festival,| upon which the emperor wrote (c.335) expressing himself greatly delighted, and saying that it was a difficult undertaking |to expound in a becoming way the reason and origin of the Paschal festival, as well as its profitable and painful consummation.| A long fragment of this treatise was discovered and published by Mai. The recovered fragment contains: (1) A declaration of the figurative character of the Jewish Passover. (2) An account of its institution and of the ceremonial itself. (3) An explanation of the typical significance of the different parts of the ceremonial, with reference to their Christian counterparts. (4) A brief statement of the settlement of the question at Nicaea. (5) An argument that Christians are not bound to observe the time of the Jewish festival, mainly because it was not the Jewish Passover which our Lord Himself kept.

E. Orations and SERMONS. -- (32) At the Dedication of the Church in Tyre. -- This oration is inserted by Eusebius in his History (x.4.) The new basilica at Tyre was a splendid building, and Eusebius addresses Paulinus, the bishop, as a Bezaleel, a Solomon, a Zerubbabel, a new Aaron or Melchizedek. He applies to the occasion the predictions of the Jewish prophets foretelling the rebuilding of the temple and the restoration of the polity. He gives thanks for the triumph of Christ, the Word of God, Who has proved mightier than the mightiest of kings. This magnificent temple, which has arisen from the ruins of its predecessor, is a token of His power. Then follows an elaborate description of the building, which, continues the orator, is a symbol of the spiritual church of Tyre, of the spiritual church throughout the world, in its history, its overthrow, its desolation, its re-erection on a more splendid scale, and in the arrangement of its several parts. But the spiritual church on earth is itself only a faint image of the heavenly Zion, where adoring hosts unceasingly sing the praises of their King.

(33) At the Vicennalia of Constantine, a.d.325. This oration, which is not extant, is mentioned Vit. Const. prooem. iii.11. It seems to have been the opening address at the council of Nicaea, see supra.

(34) On the Sepulchre of the Saviour, a.d.335. -- This is mentioned Vit. Const. iv.33, 46 seq. The circumstances of its delivery have been already described. It has been lost.

(35) At the Tricennalia of Constantine, a.d.335 or 336. -- This oration is commonly called de Laudibus Constantini. The orator, taking occasion from the festival, speaks of the Almighty Sovereign, and the Divine Word through Whom He administers the universe (§ 1). The emperor is a sort of reflection of the Supreme Word. The monarchy on earth is the counterpart of that in heaven (§§ 2, 3). The Word is the interpreter of the Invisible God in all things (§ 4). An emperor who, like Constantine, is sensible of his dependence on God, is alone fit to rule (§ 5). Periods and divisions of time are from God, as is all order throughout the universe. The number thirty (3 x 10) has a special symbolic significance, reminding us of the kingdom of glory (§ 6). The powers of wickedness and the sufferings of the saints were ended by Constantine, the champion and representative of God (§ 7). He waged war against idolatry, profligacy, and superstition (§ 8). What a change has been suddenly wrought! The false gods did not foresee their fate. The emperor, armed with piety, overthrew them. Churches rise from the ground everywhere (§ 8). The truth is proclaimed far and wide (§ 9). |Come now, most mighty victor Constantine,| says the orator, |let me lay before thee the mysteries of sacred doctrines in this royal discourse concerning the Supreme King of the Universe.| Accordingly he speaks of the person and working of the Divine Word, as mediator in the creation and government of the universe. Polytheism is condemned. As God is one, so His Word is one (§§ 11, 12). Humanity, led astray by demons and steeped in ignorance and sin, needed the advent of the Word (§ 13). It was necessary too that He should come clothed in a body (§ 14). His death and resurrection also were indispensable for the redemption of men (§ 15). The power of the Divine Word was evinced by the establishment of the church and the spread of the gospel (§ 16). It was manifested in our own time by the faith of the martyrs, by the triumph of the church over oppression, and by the punishment of the persecutors (§ 17). We have evidence of the divine origin of our faith in the prophetic announcements of Christ's coming, and in the fulfilment of His own predictions; more especially in the coincidence in time between the establishment of the Roman empire and the publication of the Gospel (§ 18).

(36) In Praise of the Martyrs. -- This discourse is short and of little value; but the orator mentions, among those whom he invites his hearers to commemorate, almost every bishop of Antioch from the end of the 2nd cent. to his own time, so that it would seem to have been delivered at Antioch.

(37) On the Failure of Rain, mentioned by Ebedjesu, but apparently not elsewhere.

F. Letters. -- (38) To Alexander, bp. of Alexandria, on behalf of Arius and his friends, complaining that they have been misrepresented.

(39) To Euphration (sometimes written incorrectly Euphrasion), bp. of Balanea in Syria, a strong opponent of the Arians (Athan. de Fug.3, Op. i. p.254; Hist. Ar. ad Mon.5, ib. p.274), who was present at the council of Nicaea. Athanasius refers to this letter as declaring plainly that Christ is not true God (de Synod.17, Op. i. p.584). An extract (containing the passage to which doubtless Athanasius refers) is quoted at the second council of Nicaea (l.c.). It insists strongly on the subordination of the Son.

(40) To Constantia Augusta (Op. ii.1545), the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius, who was closely allied with the Arians. Constantia had asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ, of which she had heard. He rebukes her for the request, saying that such representations are inadequate in themselves and tend to idolatry. He states that a foolish woman had brought him two likenesses, which might be philosophers, but were alleged by her to represent St. Paul and the Saviour. He had detained them lest they should prove a stumbling-block to her or to others. He reminds Constantia that St. Paul declares his intention of |knowing Christ no longer after the flesh.| This letter was quoted by the Iconoclasts, and this led their opponents to rake up all the questionable expressions in his writings, that they might blacken his character for orthodoxy.

(41) To the Church of Caesarea, written from Nicaea (a.d.325) during or immediately after the council to vindicate his conduct. This letter is preserved by Athanasius as an appendix to the de Decret. Syn. Nic. (Op. i. p.187; cf. § 3, ib. p.166); in Socr. H. E. i.8; in Theod. H. E. i.11; in Gelasius Cyz. Hist. Conc. Nic. ii.34 seq. (Labbe, Conc. ii.264 seq. ed. Colet.); in the Historia Tripartita, ii.11; and in Niceph. H. E. viii.22. A passage towards the end (§§ 9, 10) which savours strongly of Arianism is wanting in Socrates and in the Historia Tripartita, but appears in the other authorities, and seems certainly to be referred to by Athanasius in two places (de Decr. Syn. Nic.3, l.c.; de Synod.13, Op. i. p.581). It is condemned, however, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. iii.9.3) and Cave (Diss. Tert. in Joh. Cleric. p.58, printed at the end of his Hist. Lit. vol. ii.) as a spurious addition, probably inserted by some Arian. The letter is translated and annotated by Newman in Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, pp.59 seq. (Oxf.1853).

In reviewing the literary history of Eusebius, we are struck first of all with the range and extent of his labours. His extant works, voluminous as they are, must have formed somewhat less than half his actual writings. No field of theological learning is untouched. He is historian, apologist, topographer, exegete, critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn, and, if permanent utility 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 a vast storehouse of information as to ancient monarchies. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most important contributions to theology in their own province. Even 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. His more technical treatises have the same permanent value. The Canons and Sections have not 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 than has Eusebius by his great erudition. In the History, Chronicle, and Preparation, he has preserved a vast amount of early literature in three several spheres, which would otherwise have been irrecoverably lost. Moreover, he deserves the highest credit for his keen insight as to what would have permanent interest. He, and he only, has preserved the past in all its phases, in history, in doctrine, in criticism, even in topography, for the instruction of the future.

This is his real title to greatness. As an expositor of facts, an abstract thinker, or a master of style, it would be absurd to compare him with the great names of classical antiquity. His merits and his faults have been already indicated. His gigantic learning was his master rather than his slave. He had great conceptions, which he was unable adequately to carry out. He had valuable detached thoughts, but fails in continuity of argument. He was most laborious, yet most desultory. He accumulated materials with great diligence; but was loose, perfunctory, and uncritical in their use. His style is especially vicious. When his theme seems to him to demand a lofty flight of rhetoric, as in his Life of Constantine, his language becomes turgid and unnatural.

He is before all things an apologist. His great services in this respect are emphasized by Evagrius (H. E. i.1, peithein hoios to einai tous entunchanontas threskeuein ta hemetera); and doubtless his directly apologetic writings were much more effective than at this distance of time we can realize. Whatever subject he touches, his thoughts seem to pour instinctively into this same channel. If he treats of chronology, a main purpose is to shew the superior antiquity of the Hebrew oracles to the wisdom of the Greeks. If he writes a history of the church, it is because he sees in the course of events a vindication of the Divine Word. Even in an encomium of a sovereign, he soars aloft at once into the region of theology, for he sees in the subject of his panegyric the instrument of a higher power for the fulfilment of a divine economy. In so essentially technical a task as the division of the Gospels into sections, his underlying desire is to vindicate the essential unity of the evangelical narratives against gainsayers. This character as an apologist was due partly to the epoch in which he lived, and partly to his individual temper and circumstances. He stood, as it were, on the frontier line between two ages, with one foot in the Hellenism of the past and the other in the Christianity of the future, and by his very position was constrained to discuss their mutual relations. He was equally learned in the wisdom of the Greeks and in the Scriptures, while his breadth of sympathy and moderation of temper fitted him beyond most of his contemporaries for tracing their conflicts and coincidences. Like St. Paul on Mars' Hill, he sought the elements of truth in pre-existing philosophical systems or popular religious; and thus obtaining a foothold, worked onward in his assault upon paganism. The Greek apologists of the 2nd and 3rd cents. all, without exception, took up this position. Eusebius, through his illustrious spiritual ancestors, Origen and Pamphilus, had inherited this tradition from Alexandria. It was the only method which could achieve success in apologetics while Christianity stood face to face with still powerful forms of heathen worship. It is the only method which can hope for victory now, when once again the Gospel is confronted with the widespread religions of India and the farther East.

If we may judge from the silence of his contemporaries -- and silence in this case is an important witness -- Eusebius commanded general respect by his personal character. With the single exception of the taunt of Potammon, mentioned already, not a word of accusation is levelled against him in an age when theological controversy was peculiarly reckless and acrimonious. His relations to Pamphilus shew a strongly affectionate disposition; and it is more than probable that he was drawn into those public acts from which his reputation has suffered most by the loyalty of private friendship. His moderation is especially praised by the emperor Constantine; and his speculative opinions, as well as his personal acts, bear out this commendation. His was a life which was before all things laborious and self-denying. He was not only the most learned and prolific writer of his age; but he administered the affairs of an important diocese, and took an active part in all great questions which agitated the church.

His admiration for Constantine may be excessive, but is not difficult to understand. Constantine was unquestionably one of the very greatest emperors of Rome. His commanding personality must have been irresistible; and is enhanced by his deference towards the leading Christian bishops. He carried out a change in the relations between the church and the state incomparably greater than any before or after. Eusebius delighted to place Augustus and Constantine in juxtaposition. During the one reign the Word had appeared in the flesh; during the other He had triumphed over the world. The one reign was the counterpart and complement of the other.

A discussion of the theological opinions of Eusebius is impossible within our limits. Readers are referred to Baronius (ad ann.340, c.38 seq.), Petavius (Dogm. Theol. de Trin. lib. i. cap. xi. seq.), Montfaucon (Praelim. in Comm. ad Psalm. c. vi.), and Tillemont (H. E. vii. pp.67 seq.) among those who have assailed, and Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. ii.9.20, iii.9.3, 11), Cave (Hist. Lit. ii. app. pp.42 seq.), and Lee (Theophania, pp. xxiv. seq.) among those who have defended his opinions, from the orthodox point of view. A convenient summary of the controversy will be found in Stein, pp.117 seq. His orthodoxy cannot be hastily denied. Dr. Newman, who cannot be accused of unduly favouring Eusebius, says that |in his own writings, numerous as they are, there is very little which fixes on Eusebius any charge, beyond that of attachment to the Platonic phraseology. Had he not connected himself with the Arian party, it would have been unjust to have suspected him of heresy| (Arians, p.262). If we except the works written before the council of Nicaea, in which there is occasionally much looseness of expression, his language is for the most part strictly orthodox, or at least capable of explanation in an orthodox sense. Against the two main theses of Arius, (1) that the Word was a creature (ktisma) like other creatures, and (2) that there was a time when He was not, Eusebius is explicit on the orthodox side (e.g. c. Marc. i.4, p.22, de Eccl. Theol. i.2, 3, pp.61 seq., ib. i.8, 9, 10, pp.66 seq.). He states in direct language that the Word had no beginning (Theoph. ii.3, cf. de Laud. Const.2). If elsewhere he represents the Father as prior to the Son (e.g. Dem. Ev. iv.3, 5, ho de pater prouparchei tou huiou kai tes genesos autou prouphesteken), this priority is not necessarily intended to be temporal, and his meaning must be interpreted by his language in other passages. Nor, again, do such expressions as |second existence,| |second cause,| necessarily bear an Arian sense; for they may be taken to imply that subordination which has ever been recognized by the orthodox. But though his language might pass muster, |his acts,| it is said, |are his confession.| This is the strongest point in the indictment. His alliance with the Arian party is indisputable; but the inference drawn from it may be questioned. He may have made too great concessions to friendship. His natural temper suggested toleration, and the cause of the Arians was, or seemed to be, the cause of comprehension, and he had a profound and rooted aversion to the Sabellianism of Marcellus and others, who were acting with Athanasius. Where we have no certain information as to motives, it seems only fair to accept his own statements with respect to his opinions.

While the Arian controversy was still fresh the part taken by Eusebius was remembered against him in the Greek church, and the orthodox Fathers are generally depreciatory. But as the direct interest of the dispute wore out, the tide turned and set in his favour. Hence from the 5th cent. onwards we find a disposition to clear him of any complicity in Arian doctrine. Thus Socrates (H. E. ii.21) is at some pains to prove him orthodox; and Gelasius of Cyzicus (H. S. N. ii.1) stoutly defends this |most noble tiller of ecclesiastical husbandry,| this |strict lover of truth| (ho philalethestatos), and says that if there be any suggestion, however faint, of Arian heresy (mikron ti ta Areiou huponoumena) in his sayings or writings, it was due to |the inadvertence of simplicity,| and that Eusebius himself pleaded this excuse in self-defence. Accordingly he represents him as a champion of orthodoxy against Arian opponents. The tide turned again at the second council of Nicaea. As the Iconoclasts alleged his authority for their views, the opposite party sought to disparage him. |His own books,| says Photius, |cry aloud that he is convicted of Arianism | (Ep.73). A lasting injury was inflicted on his reputation by dragging him into the Iconoclastic dispute. In the Latin church he fared somewhat better. Jerome indeed stigmatizes the teacher to whom he was more largely indebted than perhaps to any other as |the chief of the Arians,| |the standard-bearer of the Arian faction,| |the most flagrant champion of the impiety of Arius.| But the eminent services of Eusebius to Christian literature carried the day in the western church. Two popes successively vindicated his reputation. Gelasius declined to place his History and Chronicle on the list of proscribed works (Decret. de Libr. Apocr.4). Pelagius II., when defending him, says: |Holy Church weigheth the hearts of her faithful ones with kindliness rather than their words with rigour| (Ep.5.921). Neither Gelasius nor Pelagius refers directly to the charge of Arianism. The offence which seemed to them to require apology was his defence of the heretic Origen.

A more remarkable fact still is the canonization of Eusebius, notwithstanding his real or supposed Arian opinions. In an ancient Syrian Martyrology, translated from the Greek, and already referred to, he takes his rank among the honoured martyrs and confessors of the church. Nor was it only in the East that this honour awaited him. In the Martyrologium Hieronymianum for xi. Kal. Jul. we find the entry |In Caesarea Cappadociae depositio sancti Eusebii| (Hieron. Op. xi.578). The person intended was Eusebius, the predecessor of St. Basil [[207]Eusebius (24)], as the addition |Cappadociae| shews, but the transcendent fame of the Eusebius of the other Caesarea eclipsed this comparatively obscure person and finally obliterated his name from the Latin calendars. The word |Cappadociae| disappeared. In Usuard the notice becomes |In Caesarea Palestinae sancti Eusebii historiographi| (with a v. l.); and in old Latin martyrologies, where he is not distinctly specified, the historian Eusebius is doubtless understood. Accordingly, in several Gallican service-books the historian is commemorated as a saint (see Valois, Testimonia pro Eusebio); and in the Martyrologium Romanum itself he held his place for many centuries. In the revision of this Martyrology under Gregory XIII. his name was struck out, and Eusebius of Samosata substituted, under the mistaken idea that Caesarea had been substituted for Samosata by a mistake. The Martyrologium Hieronymianum, which contained the true key to the error, had not then been discovered. The Eccl. Hist., according to the text of Burton, with intro. by Dr. Bright, is pub. by Oxf. Univ. Press, and a valuable Eng. trans. both of the History and of the Life of Constantine by Dr. McGiffert is in the Post-Nicene Lib. of the Fathers. A cheap trans. with life, notes, chronol. table, etc., is in Bohn's Library (Bell). The works of Eusebius have been ed. by T. Gaisford (Clar. Press, 9 vols.); and a revised text of the Evang. Prep. with notes and Eng. trans. by E. H. Gifford (Clar. Press, 4 vols.). The Bodleian MS. of Jerome's version of the Chronicle of Eusebius has been reproduced in collotype with intro. by J. K. Fotheringham (Clar. Press).

[L.]

Eusebius (24), bp. of Caesarea
Eusebius (24), bp. of Caesarea in Cappadocia, by whom Basil the Great was ordained to the presbyterate. Eusebius was a layman, and unbaptized at the time of his elevation to the episcopate, A.D.362. On the death of Dianius, the church of Caesarea was divided into two nearly equal factions, and the choice of a layman universally known and respected was the readiest way out of the dilemma. Military force had to be employed to overcome his reluctance and to compel the prelates to consecrate. No sooner were they free than the bishops endeavoured to declare their consecration of Eusebius void. But the counsels of the elder Gregory of Nazianzus prevailed (Greg. Naz. Orat. xix.36, pp.308, 309). Eusebius proved a very respectable prelate, but quite unequal to the circumstances of severe trial in which he soon found himself. One of the earliest acts of his episcopate was to ordain Basil priest. A coldness grew up between Eusebius and Basil, leading to Basil's three years' retirement to Pontus. [[208]Basilius of Caesarea.] (Greg Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 51-53; Ep.19, 20, 169, 170.) In 366 Basil returned to Caesarea. Each had learnt wisdom from the past (Greg. Naz. Orat. xx. §§ 57-59), and harmonious relations existed unbroken to the death of Eusebius, a.d.370.

Fleury states that Eusebius is reckoned by some as a martyr (Fleury, xv.13, 14; xvi.9, 14, 17), but Usuard probably confounds Eusebius of Cappadocia with Eusebius the historian. See Papebrochius in AA. SS. Boll. Jun. iv.75; and on the other side, Tillem. Mém. vii.39. [[209]Eusebius of Caesarea.]

[E.V.]

Eusebius (34), bp. of Dorylaeum
Eusebius (34), bp. of Dorylaeum in Phrygia Salutaris, the constant supporter of orthodoxy against Nestorius and Eutyches alike. About Christmas a.d.428, when Nestorius was asserting his heresy in a sermon at Constantinople, there stood up in church a layman of excellent character, distinguished for erudition and orthodox zeal, who asserted in opposition to Nestorius that the |eternal Word begotten before the ages had submitted also to be born a second time| (i.e. according to the flesh of the Virgin). This bold assertion of the faith caused great excitement in the church. (Cyril. Alex. adv. Nestor. i.20 in Migne, vol. ix. p.41 D; Marius Mercator, pars ii. lib. i.; Patr. Lat. xlviii. p.769 B.) This was certainly, as Theophanes (Chron. p.76) expressly says, our Eusebius, who thus was the first to oppose the Nestorian heresy (Evagr. Hist. i.9 in Patr. Gr. lxxxvi.2445). He was also the first to protest against the heretical utterances of Anastasius, the syncellus of Nestorius (Theophan. Chron. p.76). He was a |rhetor| (Evagr. l.c.) distinguished in legal practice (Leont. Byzant. cont. Nestor. et Eutych. lib. iii. in Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.1389) and an |agens in rebus| to the court (Gesta de Nom. Acacii, cap. i. in Galland. Biblioth. x.667; cf. Tillem. xiv. n. xi. on Cyril of Alex.). Theophanes (l.c.) calls him a scholastikos of the empress.

After the sermon of St. Proclus against Nestorius, and before the orthodox had separated from the communion of Nestorius, in consequence of the council of Ephesus, there appeared, fixed in a public place, a document exposing the identity of Nestorius's doctrine with that of Paul of Samosata. This document common opinion attributed to Eusebius (Leont. Byzant. u.s.). It begins by conjuring its readers to make its contents known or give a copy of it to all bishops, clergy, and laity in Constantinople. It draws out the parallel between the doctrines of Nestorius and Paul of Samosata, who both deny that the child born of Mary was the Eternal Word; and ends with an anathema on him who denies the identity of the Only begotten of the Father and the child of Mary. Eusebius must have been a priest at the time when St. Cyril wrote his five books against Nestorius (Cyril. Alex. u.s. -- so much is implied in the telun eti en laikois), i.e. c.430. He was certainly bp. of Dorylaeum in 448. He himself states that he was poor (Labbe, Conc. iv.221 D.). Common hostility to Nestorius had hitherto united Eusebius and Eutyches; but about this time Eusebius, perceiving the heretical tendencies of his friend, frequently visited him, and exhorted him to reconsider his ways (ib.154 D). Finding him immovable, Eusebius presented a |libellus| against Eutyches at a council at Constantinople under Flavian, Nov.8, 448 (ib.151). He deplores the persistency of Eutyches in error, and demands that he should be summoned before the council to answer charges of heresy. His petition was granted, though with unwillingness. At the second session of the council (Nov.12), Eusebius requested that the second letter of St. Cyril to Nestorius and his letter to John of Antioch should be read as representing the standard of orthodoxy. This led to a profession of the orthodox faith from Flavian, assented to by the other bishops. At the third session (Nov.15) Eusebius found that Eutyches had refused to come, alleging a determination never to quit his monastery, and saying that Eusebius had been for some time (palai) his enemy. [[210]Eutyches (4).] Only on the third summons was he induced to appear. Meanwhile Eusebius pressed his point persistently and even harshly, behaving with such warmth that, as Flavian said, |fire itself seemed cold to him, in his zeal for orthodoxy.| Finding that Eutyches had attempted to secure the adhesion of the other archimandrites to his views [Faustus (28)], Eusebius urged that he should be immediately treated with the rigour he deserved (Labbe, iv.211). Flavian still urged patience and moderation. At last, on Nov.22, Eutyches appeared with a large monastic and imperial escort, and was examined. Eusebius said of Eutyches: |I am poor, he threatens me with exile; he has wealth, he is already depicting (anazographei) the oasis for me.| He feared also lest Eutyches should turn round and assent to the orthodox faith -- thus causing him to be suspected of making calumnious charges (ib.221, C, D, E). The crucial question he put to Eutyches was: |My lord archimandrite, do you confess two natures after the Incarnation, and do you say that Christ is consubstantial with us according to the flesh or not?| To the first part Eutyches would not assent; he was condemned by all the bishops, and sentence of deposition was passed. He at once wrote to pope Leo I. in his own defence (Leo Mag. Ep. xxi.739), complaining of the |machinations| of Eusebius.

We next hear of Eusebius in Apr.449 at the examination of the Acts of the council of Constantinople, which Eutyches had declared to have been falsified. With him were 14 of the 34 bishops who had condemned Eutyches (Labbe, iv.235). Eutyches was represented by three delegates; Eusebius and others remonstrated against his absence, but the emperor's orders overruled them. Eusebius insisted that all examination into the case of Eutyches, and into any question other than the authenticity of the Acts, should be referred to a general council (ib.268). The examination of the Acts does not seem to have brought to light any inaccuracy of importance. When Eusebius arrived in Ephesus early in Aug.449 to attend the council, he apparently lodged with Stephen of Ephesus (ib.111 D, E), but was not permitted to attend the meetings of the council, on the ground that the emperor had forbidden it (ib.145 A, B). Flavian urged that he should be admitted and heard, but Elpidius, one of the imperial commissioners, opposed it (Hefele, Concil. ii.355) and the same wish or command of the emperor was urged by Dioscorus at the council of Chalcedon also. When the passage in the acts of Constantinople was read where Eusebius pressed Eutyches to acknowledge the two natures after the Incarnation, the council burst forth, |off with Eusebius! burn him!| (Labbe, iv.224 A). Sentence of deposition was pronounced against Flavian and Eusebius, and they were imprisoned (Liberat. cap. xii.; Galland, xii. p.140) and then sent into exile (Gest. de Nom. Acac. Galland, x.668). Eusebius escaped to Rome, where Leo welcomed him and granted him communion. He was there till Apr.481 (Leo Mag. Ep. lxxix. lxxx.1037, 1041). Leo commends him to the care of Anatolius of Constantinople, the successor of Flavian, as one who had suffered much for the faith. Eusebius left Rome to attend the council of Chalcedon. He had addressed a formal petition to the emperor Marcian against Dioscorus, and appears in the council as his accuser. He complains more than once of the conduct of Dioscorus in excluding him from the council of Ephesus (Labbe, iv.145, 156). His innocence, with that of St. Flavian, was fully recognized at the close of the 1st session of the council of Chalcedon (ib.322, 323); but at the 3rd session, on Oct.13, he presented a further petition against Dioscorus, on behalf of himself, of Flavian (tou en hagiois), and of the orthodox faith. He urges the iniquities of Dioscorus at Ephesus, and begs for complete exculpation for himself and condemnation for Dioscorus (ib.381). In the 4th session Eusebius took part in the case of certain Egyptian bishops who declined to condemn Eutyches, alleging that they were bound to follow their patriarch (i. e. Dioscorus), in accordance with the council of Nicaea. Eusebius has but one word to say, |pseudontai| (ib.513 A). We find him later (5th session, Oct.22) siding at first against the imperial officers, and the wishes of the Roman legates for making no addition to the council's definition of faith (ib.558 D; cf. Bright, Hist. of the Church, p.409). Afterwards, however, he assisted at the revision which made that definition a completer expression of the doctrine of Leo's tome. In the 11th session he (Labbe, iv.699 A) voted for the deposition of both claimants to the see of Ephesus, Bassian and Stephen, as being both alike irregularly consecrated. In the 15th session (Oct.23) he signed the much-contested 28th canon of the council on the position to be held by the see of Constantinople. [[211]Leo I..] The last time his name appears is in the rescript of the emperor Marcian, June 452, which had for its special object to rehabilitate the memory of Flavian, but which secured also that the condemnation of the robber council should in no way injure the reputation of Eusebius and Theodoret (ib.866). His name appears in the list of bishops signing the decrees of the council at Rome in 503, but this list certainly belongs to some earlier council (cf. Baron. ann.503, ix.). Comparing him with Flavian, we cannot but feel his want of generosity in his treatment of Eutyches, whose superior in logical power and theological perception he undoubtedly was. But none can deny him the credit of having been a watchful guardian of the doctrine of the Incarnation all through his life, and a keen-sighted and persistent antagonist of error, whether on the one side or the other, who by his sufferings for the orthodox faith merits the title of confessor.

[C.G.]

Eusebius (35) Emesenus, bp. of Emesa
Eusebius (35) Emesenus, bp. of Emesa, now Hems, in Syria, c.341-359. He was born at Edessa, of a noble family, of Christian parents, and from his earliest years was taught the Holy Scriptures. His education was continued in Palestine and subsequently at Alexandria. In Palestine he studied theology under Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis, from whom he contracted the Arian leanings which distinguished him to the end of his life. Jerome terms him |signifer Arianae factionis| (Chron. sub. ann. x. Constantii), and his Arian tenets are spoken of by Theodoret as too well known to admit question (Theod. Eranist. Dial. iii. p.257, ed. Schulze). About a.d.331 he visited Antioch. Eustathius had been recently banished, and the see was occupied by one of the short-lived Arian intruders, Euphronius, with whom Eusebius lived on terms of intimacy. Eusebius's high personal character and reputation for learning marked him out for the episcopate, and to avoid the office he repaired to Alexandria, where he devoted himself to philosophy. Returning to Antioch, Flaccillus (otherwise Placillus), the Arian bishop, received him into his episcopal residence and admitted him to his confidence. The Arian synod which met at Antioch a.d.340, under the predominant influence of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to nominate a successor to the newly deposed Athanasius, offered the vacant throne to Eusebius, who, well knowing how Athanasius was beloved by the Alexandrians, resolutely declined, and Gregory was chosen in his stead. Eusebius, however, allowed himself to be created bp. of Emesa. This city, on the Orontes to the N.E. of the Libanus range, some distance N. of Laodicea, was famous for its magnificent temple of Elagabalus, the Syrophoenician sun-god. A report, based on Eusebius's astronomical studies, had reached the excitable inhabitants that their new bishop was a sorcerer, addicted to judicial astrology. His approach aroused a violent popular commotion, before which he fled to his friend and future panegyrist, George, bp. of Laodicea. By George's exertions, and the influence of Flaccillus of Antioch and Narcissus of Neronias, the Emesenes were convinced of the groundlessness of their suspicions, and Eusebius obtained quiet possession. He was a great favourite with Constantius, who took him on several expeditions, especially those against Sapor II., king of Persia. It is singular that the charge, which Sozomen attributes to mere malevolence, of Sabellianism was brought against one whose Arian leanings were so pronounced. Eusebius died before the end of a.d.359. He was buried at Antioch (Hieron. de Vir. Ill.101), and his funeral oration by George of Laodicea ascribed to him miraculous powers.

He was a very copious writer. Jerome, who speaks somewhat contemptuously of his productions, particularizes treatises against the Jews, the Gentiles, and the Novatianists, an exposition of Galatians in ten books, and a large number of very brief homilies on the Gospels. The greater part of his works is lost. Theodoret quotes with high commendation in his Eranistes (Dial. iii. p.258, ed. Schulze) two passages on the impassibility of the Son of God, a truth for which he says Eusebius endured many and severe struggles. Theodoret also speaks of works of his against Apelles (Haer. Fab. i.25) and Manes (ib.26). All the extant remains of Eusebius are printed by Migne, Patr. t. lxxxvi. i. pp.461 ff. Socr. H. E. ii.9; Soz. H. E. iii.6; Niceph. H. E. ix.5; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. t. vi. p.313; Cave, Hist. Lit. vol. i. p.207; Oudin, t. i. p.389.)

[E.V.]

Eusebius (48), bp. of Laodicea
Eusebius (48), bp. of Laodicea, in Syria Prima; a native and deacon of Alexandria. In the persecution under Valerian, a.d.257, when the venerable bp. Dionysius had been banished from Alexandria, Eusebius remained, ministering to those in prison and burying the martyrs, a faithful service gratefully commemorated in a letter of Dionysius (apud Eus: H. E. vii.11). During the civil strife at the death of Valerian, when Alexandria was in revolt, a.d.262, Aemilianus, who had assumed the purple, was driven into the strong quarter of the city called Bruchium, and besieged. Eusebius without, and his friend Anatolius within, the besieged quarter secured escape for all useless hands, including a large number of Christians, whom Eusebius received kindly, supplying them with food and medicine, and carefully tending the sick. To the synod of Antioch, a.d.264, summoned to deal with Paul of Samosata, Dionysius bp. of Alexandria, being unable to be present through age, sent Eusebius as his representative. The see of Laodicea was then vacant, and the Laodiceans demanded Eusebius for their bishop, taking no refusal. As bp. of Laodicea he sat at the synod when Paul of Samosata was deposed, a.d.270. He was succeeded by his old friend Anatolius. Eus. H. E. vii.11, 32; Tillem. Mém. Eccl. iv.304; Le Quien, Or. Christ. ii.792; Neale, Patriarchate of Alex. i.77.

[E.V.]

Eusebius (60), bp. of Nicomedia
Eusebius (60), bp. of Nicomedia. Our knowledge of his character is derived almost exclusively from the bitter language of his theological antagonists. He wielded an extraordinary influence over the fortunes of some of the great party leaders of the 4th cent. The fascination he exercised over the minds of Constantine and Constantius, his dexterity in utilizing both secular and ecclesiastical law to punish his theological enemies, his ingenuity in blinding the judgment of those not alive to the magnitude of the problem, and in persuading the unwary of the practical identity of his own views with those of the Catholic church, together with the political and personal ascendancy he achieved, reveal mental capacity and diplomatic skill worthy of a better cause. During 20 years his shadow haunts the pages of the ecclesiastical historians, though they seldom bring us face to face with the man or preserve his words. Even the chronology of his life is singularly uncertain.

It is difficult to understand the pertinacity and even ferocity with which Eusebius and his party pursued the Homoousian leaders, and to reconcile this with their well-accredited compromises, shiftings of front, and theological evasions. Dr. Newman (Arians of Fourth Cent. p.272) admits their consistency in one thing, |their hatred of the sacred mystery.| He thinks that this mystery, |like a spectre, was haunting the field and disturbing the complacency of their intellectual
investigations.| Their consciences did not scruple to |find evasions of a test.| They undoubtedly compromised themselves by signature; yet they did not treat as unimportant that which they were wont to declare such but set all the machinery of church and empire in motion to enforce their latitudinarian view on the conscience of the church.

The Arian and the orthodox agreed as to the unique and exalted dignity of the Son of God; both alike described the relation between the first and second hypostasis in the Godhead as that which is imaged to us in the paternal and filial relation. They even agreed that the Son was |begotten of His Father before all worlds| -- before the commencement of time, in an ineffable manner -- that the Son was the originator of the categories of time and place, that |by His own will and counsel He has subsisted before time and before ages, as perfect God, only begotten and unchangeable| (Letter of Arius to Eus. of Nic. preserved by Theodoret, i.5). They agreed that He was |God of God,| |Light of Light,| and worthy of all honour and worship. The orthodox went further, and in order to affirm that the Deity of the Son of God was absolute and not relative, infinite and not finite, asserted that He was of the same ousia with the Father. There Arius and Eusebius stopped, and, pressing the significance of the image of Father and Son by materialistic analogies into logical conclusions, argued that |generation| implied that |there was [a period, rather than a 'time'] when He was not,| that |He was not before He was begotten.| The one element, said they, which the Son did not possess by His generation was the eternal, absolute ousia of the Father. |We affirm,| said Eusebius, in his one extant authentic letter, addressed to Paulinus of Tyre (Theod. i.6), that |there is one Who is unbegotten, and that there also exists Another, Who did in truth proceed from Him, yet Who was not made out of His substance, and Who does not at all participate in the nature or substance of Him Who is unbegotten.|

If we follow out the logical conclusions involved in the denial of the orthodox statement on this transcendental theme, it is more easy to understand the abhorrence with which the dogmatic negations of the Arians were regarded by the Catholic church. The position of Arius and Eusebius involved a virtual Ditheism, and opened the door to a novel Polytheism. After Christianity had triumphed over the gods of heathendom, Arius seemed to be reintroducing them under other names. The numerical unity of God was at stake; and a schism, or at least a divarication of interests in the Godhead, shewn to be possible. Moreover, the |Divinity| of the Incarnate Word was on this hypothesis less than God; and so behind the Deity which He claimed there loomed another Godhead, between Whom and Himself antagonism might easily be predicated. The Gnosticism of Marcion had already drawn such antagonism into sharp outline, and the entire view of the person of the Lord, thus suggested, rapidly degenerated into a cold and unchristian humanitarianism.

The exigencies of historic criticism and of the exegesis of the N.T. compelled the Arian party to discriminate between the Word, the power, the wisdom of God, and the Son. They could not deny, since God could never have been without His |Logos,| that the Logos was in some sense eternal. So they took advantage of the distinction drawn in the Greek schools between logos endiathetos, identifiable with the wisdom, reason, and self-consciousness of God, and logos prophorikos, the setting forth and going out at a particular epoch of the divine energy. The latter they regarded as the logos which was made flesh and might be equated with the Son. |The external (prophoric) word was a created Being made in the beginning of all things as the visible emblem of the internal (endiathetic) word, and (used as) the instrument of God's purposes towards His creation| (Newman, l.c.199; cf. Athan. Hist. Conc. Arim. et Seleuc. cap. ii. § 18).

The orthodox party admitted the double use of the word logos, allowed that it answered to the eternal wisdom and also to the eternal manifestation of God, and discarding the trammels of the figurative expression by which the internal relations of the Godhead can alone be represented to us, declared that they could not carry the materialistic or temporal accompaniments of our idea of Father and Son into this |generation,| and boldly accepted the sublime paradox with which Origen had refuted Sabellianism -- viz. the |eternal generation of the Son.| To suppose the relation between the Father and Son other than eternal was to be involved in the toils of a polytheistic emanation and Gnostic speculation. Compelled to formulate expressions about the infinite and eternal God, they concluded that any formula which divided the essence of God left infinity on the one side, and the finite on the other, i.e. that there would be, on this hypothesis, an infinite difference even in majesty and glory between the Father and the Son. This was blasphemy in the eyes of those who held the Divinity of the Son of God.

The controversy was embittered by the method in which Arius and Eusebius appealed to Holy Scripture. They urged that Godhead and participation in the divine nature were attributed to Christ in the same terms in which similar distinctions are yielded by God to other creatures, angelic, human, or physical (Theod. H. E. i.6, 8). Thus Christ's rank in the universe might be indefinitely reduced, and all confidence in Him ultimately proved an illusion. The argument had a tone of gross irreverence, even if the leaders can be quite acquitted of blasphemous levity or intentional abuse.

One of the tactics of the Arian or Eusebian party was to accuse of Sabellianism those, like Athanasius, Eustathius, and Marcellus of Ancyra, who refused their interpretation of the relation between the Father and the Son. Doubtless many not versed in philosophical discussion were incapable of discriminating between the views of Sabellius and an orthodoxy which vehemently or unguardedly condemned the Arian position. Eusebius repudiated violently the Pantheistic tendency of the Sabellian doctrine. He is the most prominent and most distinguished man of the entire movement, and it has been plausibly argued that he was the teacher rather than the disciple of Arius. Athanasius himself made the suggestion. We learn on good authority, that of Arius himself, that they were fellow-disciples of Lucian of Antioch (ib.5). Lucian afterwards modified his views and became a martyr for the faith, but his rationalizing spirit had had a great effect on the schools of Antioch. According to Ammianus Marcellinus, Eusebius was a distant relative of the emperor Julian, and therefore possibly of Constantine.

It may have been through the wife of Licinius and sister of Constantine that he received his first ecclesiastical appointment. This was the bishopric of Berytus (Beirout) in Syria. We cannot say under what pretext he was translated to the see of Nicomedia, a city which was still the principal seat of the imperial court. In Nicomedia his ambitious spirit and personal relations with the imperial family gave him much influence. |He was,| says Sozomen (H. E. i.15), |a man of considerable learning, and held in high repute at the palace.| Here were spun the webs by which the Arian conspiracy for a while prevailed over the faith and discipline of the church. One of the most authoritative documents of Arianism is a letter sent by Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, after his first suspension from presbyteral functions at Baukalis, Alexandria, in which he reminds Eusebius of their ancient friendship and briefly states his own views. [[212]Arius.] Arius boasts that Eusebius of Caesarea, Theodotus of Laodicea, Paulinus of Tyre, Athanasius of Anazarbus, Gregory of Berytus, Aetius of Lydda, and all the bishops of the East, if he is condemned, must be condemned with him (Theod. H. E. i.5). The alarm created by the conduct of Arius and his numerous friends in high quarters induced Alexander of Alexandria to indite his famous letter to Alexander of Constantinople, which is of an encyclical character and was sent in some form to Eusebius of Nicomedia and other prelates. Exasperated by its tone, Eusebius called a council in Bithynia (probably at Nicomedia itself) of the friends of Arius, who addressed numerous bishops, desiring them to grant communion to the Arians and requiring, Alexander to do the like (Soz. i.15). These proceedings drew from Eusebius a written expression of his views, in a letter to Paulinus of Tyre, preserved by Theodoret (i.6). Eusebius believed Alexander of Alexandria to be in doctrinal error, but not yet so far gone but that Paulinus might put him right. He tacitly assumed that the party of Alexandria asserted |two unbegotten beings,| a position utterly denied by themselves. He repudiated strongly the idea that the Son was made in any sense out of the substance of God; declaring the Son |to be entirely distinct in nature and power,| the method of His origination being known only to God, not even to the Son Himself. The verb |created,| in Prov. viii.22-26, could not, Eusebius said, have been used if the |wisdom| of which the prophet was speaking was ex aporrhoias tes ousias: |For that which proceeds from Him Who is unbegotten cannot be said to have been created or founded either by Him or by another.| The effect of the word |begotten| is reduced to a minimum by saying that the term is used of |things| and of persons entirely different in nature from God. |Men,| |Israel,| and |drops of dew| are in different scriptures said to be |begotten| of God. Therefore, Eusebius argued, the term cannot and does not carry similarity, still less identity of nature. At first the emperor Constantine treated the conflict as if capable of easy adjustment by a wise exercise of Christian temper. In 324 he wrote a joint letter, which he entrusted to Hosius of Cordova (Soz. H. E. i.16), in which he called upon Alexander and Arius, for the sake of peace, to terminate their controversy. The dispute was a |trifling and foolish verbal dispute,| and difference of judgment was, he urged, compatible with union and communion. Constantine had probably been led to this step by Eusebius of Nicomedia, and the strong pressure put upon Alexander to receive Arius into communion corresponds with the subsequent persistent demand of the Eusebians. The effort at mediation failed, although conducted with skilful diplomacy and tact by the venerable Hosius. As the dispute was no mere verbal quibble, but did in reality touch the very object of divine worship, the ground of religious hope, and the unity of the Godhead, the well-meant interference of the emperor merely augmented the acrimony of the disputants. Arius was again condemned by a council at Alexandria, and the entire East was disturbed. The angry letter of Constantine to Arius, which must have been written after his condemnation by the Alexandrian council and before the council of Nicaea, shews that the influence of Eusebius must now have been in abeyance. Constantine was no theologian, but hated a recalcitrant subordinate in church or state, and hence the undoubted vacillation of his mind towards Alexander, Arius, Eusebius, and Athanasius. At the oecumenical council of Nicaea in 325, Eusebius defended the excommunicated presbyter and was the advocate and interpreter of his opinions before the council. We must give him credit for moral courage in risking his position as bishop and as court favourite for the sake of his theological views, and opposing himself almost single-handed to the nearly unanimous judgment of the first representative assembly of the Christian episcopate -- a judgment fanned into enthusiasm by martyrs and monks from the African monasteries and accepted hurriedly but passionately by the emperor. The courage was of short duration, and made way for disingenuous wiles. Eusebius soon displayed an inconsistent and temporizing spirit. Whether or no they still held that the difference was merely verbal, when the Arian bishops in the council found that the Godhead of the Redeemer was declared by the vast majority to be of the very essence of Christian doctrine, they made every effort to accept the terms in which that Godhead was being expressed by the council, making signs to each other that term after term, such as |Power of God,| |Wisdom of God,| |Image of God,| |Very God of very God,| might be accepted because they could use them of such divinity as was |made| or constituted as such by the divine appointment. Thus they were becoming parties to a test, which they were intending to evade. The term Homoousion, as applied to the Son of God, rallied for a while their conscience, and Eusebius declared it to be untenable. According to Theodoret (i.8), the |formulary propounded by Eusebius contained undisguised evidence of his blasphemy; the reading of it occasioned great grief to the audience on account of the depravity of the doctrines; the writer was covered with shame, and the impious writing was torn to pieces.| The inconsistency of the Arian party is exaggerated by Theodoret, for he adds, |the Arians unanimously signed the confession of faith adopted by the council.| This is not precisely the case. There were 17 bishops (Soz. i.20) who at first refused their signatures, among them both the Eusebii, Theognis of Nicaea, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of Ptolemais, Theonas, Patrophilus, Narcissus, Maris, and others. Eusebius of Caesarea, after long discussion, signed the symbol, which was in fact an enlargement of a formal creed that he had himself presented to the council, on the ground that the negative dogmata of the Arian party which were anathematized by the council could not be found in Scripture. Others of his party followed. According to Theodoret (i.9), all, except Secundus and Theonas, joined in the condemnation of Arius; and Sozomen (i.21) declares explicitly that Eusebius of Nicomedia, with others, |sanctioned| the decision of the synod as to the consubstantiality of the Son, and the excommunication of those who held the Arian formulae; but Sozomen goes on to say that |it ought to be known that Eusebius and Theognis, although they assented to the exposition of faith set forth by the council, neither agreed nor subscribed to the deposition of Arius.| Sozomen, apparently, makes this refusal to sign, on the part of Eusebius and Theognis, to have been the reason or occasion of their own exile, and of the filling up by Constantine of their respective sees with Amphion and Chrestus. Philostorgius admits that the whole Arian party, except Secundus and Theonas, signed the symbol, but that they did it deceitfully (en dolo), with the mental reservation of homoiousion (of similar substance) for homoousion (of the same substance). He adds, according to his editor, that they did this under the direction of Constantina, the sister of Constantine; and further he relates that |Secundus, when sent into exile, reproached Eusebius for having signed, saying that he did so in order to avoid going into exile, and that Secundus expressed a confident hope that Eusebius would shortly be exiled, an event which took place three months after the council.| Moreover, Athanasius (de Decretis Syn. Nic. cc.3, 18) expressly says that Eusebius signed the formulary.

Notwithstanding their signature, for some reason Eusebius and Theognis were banished for nearly three years from their respective sees. Theodoret (H. E. i.20) preserves a portion of a letter written by Constantine against Eusebius and Theognis, and addressed to the Nicomedians. The document displays bitter animosity, and, for so astute a prince, a curious simplicity. Constantine reveals a private grudge against Eusebius for his conduct when Licinius was contending with him, and professes to have seized the accomplices of Eusebius and to have possessed himself of damaging papers and trustworthy evidence against him. He reproaches Eusebius with having been the first defender of Arius and with having deceived him in hope of retaining his benefice. He refers angrily to the conduct of Eusebius in urging Alexandrians and others to communicate with the Arians. This pertinacity is suggested by Constantine as the actuating cause and occasion of his exile.

Epiphanius (Haer. lxviii.) details the circumstances of the union of the Meletian schismatics with the Arians, and the disingenuous part taken by Eusebius in promising his good offices with the emperor, if they in their turn would promote the return of Arius to Alexandria, and would promise inter-communion with him and his party.

The terms of hatred and disgust with which Constantine speaks of Eusebius render his early return to Nicomedia very puzzling. Sozomen (ii.16) and Socrates (i.14) both record a letter (a.d.328) from Eusebius and Theognis to |the Bishops,| explaining their views, in which they say, |We hold the same faith that you do, and after a diligent examination of the word homoousios, are wholly intent upon preserving peace, and are seduced by no heresy. Having proposed for the safety of the church such suggestions as occurred to us, and having certified what we deemed requisite, we signed the confession of faith. We did not certainly sign the anathemas -- not because we impugned the confession of faith, but because we did not believe the accused to be what he was represented to us. . . . So far from opposing any of the decrees enacted in your holy synod, we assent to all of them -- not because we are wearied of exile, but because we wish to avert all suspicion of heresy. . . . The accused having justified himself and having been recalled from exile, . . . we beseech you to make our supplications known to our most godly emperor, and that you immediately direct us to act according to your will.| If this letter is genuine, it demonstrates the fact of their partial and incomplete signature of the symbol of Nicaea, and that the incompleteness turned on personal and not on doctrinal grounds. Other statements of Sozomen (ii.27) are in harmony with it, but there are reasons for hesitating to receive these statements, and the letter itself is in obvious contradiction with the evidence of Philostorgius (i.9) and Epiphanius (lxviii.5) that Eusebius and Theognis signed the symbol, anathemas and all. Are we to believe these writers against the testimony of Sozomen and Socrates, who expressly give a consistent representation undoubtedly more favourable to Eusebius?

The most powerful argument of De Broglie and others against the genuineness of the letter, as being written from the exile of Eusebius, is the silence of Athanasius, who never uses it to shew the identity of the position and sentiments of Arius and Eusebius. Philostorgius recounts a rumour that after the council Eusebius desired to have his name expunged from the list of signatures, and a similar statement is repeated by Sozomen (ii.21) as the possible cause of the banishment of Eusebius. The fact may, notwithstanding the adverse judgment of many historians, have been that Eusebius signed the formulary, expressing the view he took of its meaning, and discriminating between an anathema of certain positions and the persecution of an individual. A signature, thus qualified, may have saved him from immediate banishment. In the course of three months his sympathy with Arius and his underhand proceeding with the Meletians may have roused the emperor's indignation and led to his banishment. The probability that Arius was recalled first, as positively stated in what purports to be a contemporary document, is certainly greater than that merely à priori probability on which De Broglie insists. Moreover, if Arius had been restored to favour, the vacillating mind of Constantine may have been moved to recall the two bishops. At all events, c.329, we find Eusebius once more in high favour with Constantine (Socr. H. E. i.23), discharging his episcopal functions and persuading Constantine that he and Arius held substantially the creed of Nicaea. Thenceforward Eusebius used his great power at court and his ascendancy over the mind of Constantine to blast the character and quench the influence of the most distinguished advocates of anti-Arian views. He put all the machinery of church and state into operation to unseat Athanasius, Eustathius, Marcellus, and others; and, by means open to the severest reprehension, steadily and unscrupulously strove to enforce his latitudinarian compromise on the Catholic church. It is not difficult to trace his hand in the letter of Constantine threatening Athanasius, now archbp. of Alexandria, with deposition if he did not admit those anxious for communion. Moreover, Athanasius assures us that Eusebius wrote to him personally with the same object. The answers Athanasius gave to Eusebius and the emperor made it clear that the project could never succeed so long as Athanasius remained at Alexandria.

Meanwhile, considerable controversy had occurred between Eusebius of Caesarea and Eustathius of Antioch on the true meaning of the term Homoousios. Eustathius [[213]Eustathius (3)], in his zeal for the Nicene faith, had strenuously refused to admit Arians into communion, and laid himself open, in the opinion of Eusebius of Caesarea, to the charge of Sabellianism (Soz. ii.18). This provided the opportunity for Eusebius of Nicomedia to strike a blow at Eustathius, and nothing can exceed the treachery shewn by Eusebius on this occasion. His apparently friendly visit to Eustathius on his way to Jerusalem (Soz. ii.19; Theod. i.21), the gathering of his Arian supporters on his return to Antioch, shew the scheme to have been deeply laid. Here, a.d.330 or beginning of 331, the council of his friends was held, at which the charge of Sabellianism was, according to Theodoret (i.21) and Philostorgius (ii.7), aggravated by the accusation brought by a woman, that Eustathius was the father of her child -- a not uncommon device of the enemies of
ecclesiastics. The upshot was that through this, and other vamped-up charges of disrespect to the emperor's mother, Eustathius was deposed and exiled by the Eusebians. The letter of Constantine upon the affair, and against heretics generally, brought the controversy to a lull, until the first attack upon Athanasius. The career of Eusebius of Nicomedia during the remaining ten years of his life is so closely intertwined with the romantic sufferings of Athanasius that it is difficult to indicate the part he took in the persecution of Athanasius without reproducing the story of this great hero of the Catholic faith. The first charge which Eusebius encouraged the Meletians to bring against Athanasius concerned his taxing the people of Egypt for linen vestments, and turned upon the supposed violence of Macarius, the representative of Athanasius, in overthrowing the altar and the chalice, when reproving (for uncanonical proceedings) Ischyras, a priest of the Colluthian sect. These charges were all absolutely disproved by Athanasius before Constantine at Nicomedia. On his return to Alexandria, Athanasius had to encounter fresh opposition. The preposterous story of the murder of Arsenius, with its grotesque accompaniments, was gravely laid at his door. [[214]Athanasius.] To this, at first, he disdained to reply. Eusebius declared even this to be a serious charge, and made much capital out of the refusal of Athanasius to attend the council at Caesarea, which was summoned, among other causes, to investigate it (Theod. i.28). In 335, the partisan council of Tyre passed a sentence of deposition upon Athanasius, who had fled to Constantinople to appeal to the emperor, who summoned the whole synod of Tyre before him. Eusebius and a few of his party, Theognis, Patrophilus, Valens, and Ursacius, obeyed the summons, and confronted Athanasius; but abandoning the disproved charges upon which the sentence of deposition rested, they met him with new accusations likely to damage him in the view of the emperor. Constantine yielded to the malicious inventions of Eusebius, and banished Athanasius to Trèves, in Feb.336. The cause of banishment is obscure, but twice over (Ap. § 87, Hist. Ar. § 50) Athanasius declares that Constantine sent him to Gaul to deliver him from the fury of his enemies. While Athanasius was in exile Eusebius and his party impeached Marcellus of Ancyra for refusing to appear at the council of Dedication at Jerusalem, a.d.335, and for Sabellianism, an implication of heresy to which he exposed himself while zealously vindicating his refusal to hold communion with Arians. [[215]Asterius (1);
Marcellus.] Marcellus was deposed by the Eusebians, and not restored till the council of Sardica. At the council of Dedication at Jerusalem, Arius propounded a view of his faith which was satisfactory to the council, was received into communion there, and sent by Eusebius to Alexandria, whence, as his presence created great disturbance, he was summoned to Constantinople. There Arius died tragically on the eve of the public reception which Eusebius had planned. The death of Alexander of Constantinople followed very shortly, and the effort to elect Paul (Paulus (18)] in his place (without the consent of the bp. of Nicomedia) roused the ire of Eusebius, who intrigued to secure his first deposition. Eusebius must still have retained the favour of Constantine, as he appears to have administered baptism to the dying emperor, May 337. Jerome says that by this act Constantine avowed himself an Arian. |But all history protests against the severity of this sentence| (de Broglie). Hefele supposes that Constantine regarded Eusebius as the great advocate of Christian unity. Moreover, in the eyes of Constantine, Eusebius was one who had signed the Nicene symbol, and had renounced the negations of Arius. The ecclesiastical historians give divergent statements as to when Eusebius was raised to the episcopate of Constantinople. Theodoret (i.19) accuses Eusebius of unlawful translation from Nicomedia to Constantinople |in direct violation of that canon which prohibits bishops and presbyters from going from one city to another,| and asserts that this took place on the death of Alexander. There is, however, proof that Paul, who was twice banished through the influence of Eusebius, was the immediate successor of Alexander. Paul was nominated by Alexander, but the Eusebian party put forward Macedonius (Soz. iii.4), and were defeated. The dispute roused the indignation of Constantius, and |through the machination of the enemies of Paul a synod was convened, and he was expelled from the church, and Eusebius, bp. of Nicomedia, was installed in the bishopric of Constantinople|; with this statement Socrates (ii.7) agrees. For a while the education of Julian was entrusted to Eusebius, who had unbounded influence over Constantius.

In 340 the Eusebians held a synod at Antioch, at which Athanasius was once more condemned. In 341 (May) the council developed into the celebrated council in Encaeniis, held also at Antioch, at which, under the presidency of Eusebius or Placetus of Antioch, and with the assent and presence of Constantius, divers canons were passed, which are esteemed of authority by later oecumenical councils. These two councils are confounded and identified by Socrates (ii.2) and Sozomen.

The cruel injustice to which Athanasius was subjected by long exile is freely attributed to Eusebius, as its mainspring and constant instigator. Nevertheless the last thing we are told about Eusebius by Socrates (ii.13) is that he appealed from the council of Antioch to Julius, bp. of Rome, to give definite sentence as to Athanasius, but that before the sentence of Julius reached him, |immediately after the council broke up, breath went out of his body, and so he died,| a.d.342.

In addition to authors already cited, the following may be consulted: The Orations of St. Athanasius against the Arians, according to the Benedictine Text, with an Account of his Life, by William Bright, D.D.; Hefele, History of the Christian Councils, translated by Prebendary Clark and Mr. Oxenham, vols. i. and ii.; Möhler, Athanasius der Grosse und die Kirche seiner Zeit (1844); William Bright, D.D., History of the Church from 313 to 451 (1869); Albert de Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire (1856), t. ii.; The Arians of the Fourth Century, by J. H. Newman (4th ed.1876).

[H.R.R.]

Eusebius, bishop of Pelusium
Eusebius (71), bp. of Pelusium, between Ammonius and Georgius. He was present at the council of Ephesus in 431 (Mansi, iv.1127 A, 1219 B, 1366 D; v.615 C). His contemporary Isidore, abbat of Pelusiurn, depicts him in the darkest colours, as a man of some taste and some ability, an |agreeable| preacher (Ep. i.112; cf. v.301), but hot-tempered (v.196; cf. iii.44) and easily swayed by men worse than himself (ii.127; v.451); his hands were not clear of simoniacal gain, which he employed in building a splendid church (i.37; ii.246); he |entrusted the flock to dogs, wolves, foxes| (v.147), |the monasteries to herdsmen and runaway slaves| (i.262); he was forgetful of the poor, and inaccessible to remonstrance (iii.260). His confidants were Lucius the archdeacon, who was said to take money for ordinations (i.29); Zosimus a priest, who disgraced his grey hairs by vices (i.140; ii.75, 205, etc.) and retained contributions meant for the poor (v.210); and three deacons, Eustathius, Anatolius, and Maron (i.223; ii.28, 29, etc.), with whom Gotthius (ii.10), Simon, and Chaeremon (v.48, 373) are associated. The greediness of those who administered the church property was insatiable (v.79). The offences of these men, or of some of them, were so gross that men cried out against them as effective advocates of Epicureanism (ii, 153, 230), and Isidore had to tell his correspondents that he had done his best (as, indeed, many of his letters shew, e.g. i.140, 436; ii.28, 39, etc.) to reclaim the offenders, but that the physician could not compel the patient to follow his advice, that |God the Word Himself| could not save Judas (iv.205.) that a good man should not soil his lips by denouncing their conduct (iii.229; v.116), and that nothing remained but to pray for their conversion (v.2, 105, etc.), and in the meantime to distinguish between the man and the office (ii.52), and to remember that the unworthiness of the minister hindered not the effect of the sacraments (ii.32). But the fullest account of the misgovernment of the church of Pelusium is given in the story of Martinianus (ii.127), whom Eusebius had ordained, and made |oeconomus| or church steward. He played the knave and tyrant, treated the bishops as his tool, was more than once in peril of his life from the indignation of the citizens, went to Alexandria, was menaced by archbp. Cyril with excommunication, but returned and imputed to Cyril himself a participation in simony. Such things induced many to leave Pelusium in disgust; |the altar lacked ministers| (i.38); a pious deacon, such as Eutonius, was oppressed by Zosimus (ii.131) and attacked by the whole clergy, to some extent out of subserviency to the bishop (v.564). Eusebius is not mentioned among the Fathers of the council of Chalcedon in 451. In 457 he and Peter, bp. of Majuma, assisted at the ordination of Timotheus Aelurus to the see of Alexandria (Evagr. H. E. ii.8), and those who were parties to that proceeding are stated by Theodorus Lector (H. E. i.9) to have been deposed bishops. The epistle of the Egyptian bishops to Anatolius (Cod. Encyc. in Mansi, vii.533 A) represents the two bishops (here unnamed) who ordained Timotheus as having no communion with the Catholic church. Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii.533; Tillem. Mém. xv.747, 748, 782-788.

[W.B. AND C.H.]

Eusebius, bishop of Samosata
Eusebius (77), bp. of Samosata (360-373), the friend alike of Basil the Great, Meletius, and Gregory Nazianzen. All that is definitely known of Eusebius is gathered from the epistles of Basil and of Gregory, and from some incidents in the Ecclesiastical History of Theodoret. The fervent and laudatory phrases applied to him might suggest hyperbole if they were not so constant (Epp. xxviii. xxix. Greg. Naz. Opp. ed. Prunaeus, Colon. vol. i.792; Ep. xxxiv. Basilii opera, ed. Par. t. iii.). As bp. of Samorata in 361, he took part in the consecration of Meletius to the see of Antioch. Meletius was then in communion with the Arians, an a coalition of bishops of both parties place the document affirming the consecration in the hands of Eusebius. Meletius soon proclaimed explicitly his Nicene Trinitarianism and was banished by Constantius on the charge of Sabellianism. Meanwhile Eusebius had returned to Samosata with the written record of the appointment of Meletius to Antioch. The Arians, anxious to destroy this proof of their complicity, persuaded Constantius to demand, by a public functionary, the reddition of the document. Eusebius replied, |I cannot consent to restore the public deposit, except at the command of the whole assembly of bishops by whom it was committed to my care.| This reply incensed the emperor, who wrote to Eusebius ordering him to deliver the decree on pain of amputation of his right hand. Theodoret says the threat was only meant to intimidate the bishop; if so, it failed, for Eusebius stretched out both hands, exclaiming, |I am willing to suffer the loss of both hands rather than resign a document which contains so manifest a demonstration of the impiety of the Arians.|

Tillemont hesitates to claim for Eusebius, as many writers have done, the honour of being the Christian confessor in the persecutions under Julian. According to Greg. Naz. (Orat. c. Julianum, i. p.133 b.c.), when suffering on the rack and finding one part of his body not as yet tortured, Eusebius complained to the executioners for not conferring equal honour on his entire frame. The death of Julian and the accession of Jovian gave liberty to the church.

During and after this temporary lull in the imperial patronage of the Arian party, the great exertions of Eusebius probably took place. He is represented as travelling in the guise of a soldier (Theod. iv.13) through Phoenicia and Palestine, ordaining presbyters and deacons, and must thus have become known to Basil, who on the death of Eusebius of Caesarea wrote to Gregory (Bas. Ep. xlvii. Paris ed.), the father of Gregory of Nazianzus, advising the selection of Eusebius of Samosata for the vacant bishopric. The Paris editors of Basil plausibly suggest that the letter thus numbered was written by Gregory to Eusebius concerning Basil, rather than by Basil concerning Eusebius. The part which Eusebius did take in the election of Basil is well known. Basil's appointment gave Gregory extreme satisfaction (Greg. Naz. Ep. xxix.). He dilates on the delight which the visit of Eusebius to Caesarea had given the community. The bedridden had sprung from their couches, and all kinds of moral miracles had been wrought by his presence. Thereafter the correspondence between Basil and Eusebius reveals the progress of their joint lives, and throws some light upon the history of the church. The two ecclesiastics were passionately eager for one another's society, and appear to have formed numerous designs, all falling through, for an interchange of visits.

In 372 Eusebius signed, with Meletius, Basil, and 29 others, a letter to the Western bishops, in view of their common troubles from Arian opponents. The letter (Basil, Ep. xcii. Paris ed.), a melancholy Jeremiad, recounts disaster and disorder, uncanonical proceedings and Arian heresy. The Eastern bishops look to their brethren in Italy and Gaul for sympathy and advice, paying a tribute to the pristine purity which the Western churches had preserved intact while the Eastern churches had been lacerated, undermined, and divided by heretics and unconstitutional acts. Later in 372 Basil entreats Eusebius to meet him at Phargamon in Armenia, at an assembly of bishops (Ep. xcv.). If Eusebius will not or cannot attend the conference, neither will Basil; and (xcviii.) he passionately urges him to visit him at Caesarea. Letters from Eusebius appear to have been received by Basil, who once more (c.) begs a visit at the time of the festival of the martyr Eupsychius, since many things demanded mutual consideration. At the end of 372 Basil (cv.) managed the laborious journey to Samosata, and secured from his friend the promise of a return visit. This promise, said he, had ravished the church with joy. In 373 Basil urged Eusebius to fulfil his promise, and (cxxvii.) assured him that Jovinus had answered his expectations as bp. of Nicopolis. Jovinus was a worthy pupil of Eusebius, and gratified Basil by his canonical proprieties. Everywhere the thremmata of Eusebius exhibit the image of his sanctity. Other authorities (Tillem. Art. iii.) record that Jovinus relapsed afterwards into Arianism. The good offices of Eusebius were solicited by Eustathius of Sebaste, who had quarrelled with Basil. Basil's principle of |purity before reconciliation| convinced Eusebius of his wisdom and moderation. At the council of Gangra, probably in 372 or 373, Eustathius of Sebaste was condemned for Arian tendencies and hyperascetic practices. There is a difficulty in deciding who was the Eusebius mentioned primo loco without a see in the synodal letter. It may have been the bp. of Samosata, and as Basil entreated his advice as to Eustathius, he may have joined him, Hypatius, Gregory, and other friends whose names occur in this pronunciamiento. His age and moral eminence would give him this prominent position. The 20 canons of Gangra are detailed with interesting comment by Hefele, who thinks the chronology entirely uncertain. We venture the above suggestion, which would throw considerable light on the practical character of the bp. of Samosata. In 373 a letter of Basil (Ep. cxxxvi.) shews that Eusebius had successfully secured the election of a Catholic bishop at Tarsus. In consequence, he was eagerly entreated to visit Basil at Caesarea. He may have done so, and presided at the council of Gangra. An encyclical which Eusebius proposed to send to Italy was not prepared, but Dorotheus and Gregory of Nyssa were induced to visit Rome in 374. The Paris editors assign to 368 or 369 Basil's letters (xxvii. xxxi.) descriptive of his illness, and the famine that arrested his movements, but whensoever written, they reveal the extraordinary confidence put by Basil in his brother bishop. He had been healed by the intercessions of Eusebius, and now, all medical aid having failed Hypatius his brother, he sends him to Samosata to be under the care and prayers of Eusebius and his brethren. It is remarkable that Eusebius was left undisturbed during the bitter persecutions of the orthodox by the emperor Valens. At length his hour came, and few pages in the history of the time are more vivid than those which portray the circumstances of his exile. Valens promised the Arian bp. Eudoxius, who had baptized him, that he would banish all who held contrary opinions. Thus Eusebius was expelled from Samosata (Theod. iv.13). The imperial sentence ordered his instant departure to Thrace (ib.14). Ceillier (v.3) places this in 374. The officer who served the summons was bidden by Eusebius to conceal the cause of his journey. |For if the multitude (said Eusebius), who are all imbued with divine zeal, should learn your design, they would drown you, and I should have to answer for your death.| After conducting worship, he took one domestic servant, a |pillow, and a book,| and departed in the dead of night. The effect of his departure upon his flock is graphically described by Theodoret. The clamour, the weeping, the pursuit, the entreaties to return to Samosata and brave the wrath of the emperor, the humble submission of the bishop to the will of the prince on the ground of the authority of St. Paul, the refusal of costly gifts, the parting of the old man from his people, and the disappearance of the venerable confessor on his long and perilous journey to the Danube, are all told in a few striking sentences. Eusebius had excited a persistent and intense antagonism to the views of the Arians which assumed very practical forms. The Arian bp. Eunomius was avoided as if smitten with deadly and contagious pest. The very water he used in the public bath was wasted by the populace as contaminated. The repugnance being invincible, the poor man, inoffensive and gentle in spirit, retired from the unequal contest. His successor, Lucius, |a wolf and a deceiver of the flock,| was received with scant courtesy. The children spontaneously burned a ball upon which the ass on which the Arian bishop rode had accidentally trodden. Lucius was not conquered by such manifestations, and took counsel with the Roman magistracy to banish all the Catholic clergy. Meanwhile Eusebius by slow stages reached the Danube when |the Goths were ravaging Thrace and besieging many cities.| The most vigorous eulogium is passed upon his power to console others. At this dark time his faithfulness was a joy to the Eastern bishops. Basil congratulated Antiochus, a nephew of Eusebius, on the privilege of having seen and talked with such a man (Ep. clxviii.), and Gregory thought his prayers for their welfare must be as efficacious as those of a martyr. For Eusebius, concealed in exile, Basil contrived means of communication with his old flock. Numerous letters passed between the two, more in the tone of young lovers than of old bishops, and some interesting hints are given as to difficulty of communication. Eusebius was eagerly longing for letters, while Basil protested that he had written no fewer than four, which never reached their destination. To Eusebius (ccxxxix.) Basil complains bitterly of the lack of fair dealing on the part of the Western church, and mysterious hints are not unfrequently dropped as to the sentiment entertained at Rome with reference to himself, Eusebius, and Meletius. In 377 Dorotheus found that the two latter were, to the horror of Basil, reckoned at Rome as Arians. Eusebius suffered less from the barbarian ravages of the Goths than from this momentary assault on his honour. In 378 the persecuting policy of Valens was closed by his death. Gratian recalled the banished prelates, and gave peace to the Eastern church. Theodoret (H. E. v.4, 5) expressly mentions the permission to Eusebius to return. Notwithstanding the apparently non-canonical character of the proceeding, Eusebius ordained numerous bishops on his way from Thrace to the Euphrates, including Acacius at Beroea, Theodotus at Hierapolis, Isidore at Cyrus, and Eulogius at Edessa. All these names were appended to the creed of Constantinople.

When taking part in the ordination of Maris at the little town of Dolica (Theod. H. E. v.4), a woman charged with Arian passion hurled at Eusebius a brick, which fell upon his head, and wounded him fatally. Theodoret records that the aged bishop, in the spirit of the protomartyr and his Divine Lord, extorted promises from his attendants that they would make no search for his murderess. On June 22 the Eastern churches commemorate his so-called martyrdom. His nephew Antiochus probably succeeded to the bishopric of Samosata. Tillem. viii.326; Ceillier, v.5.

[H.R.R.]

Eusebius, bp. of Vercellae
Eusebius (93), St., bp. of Vercellae (Vercelli), known for his zeal and sufferings in the cause of orthodoxy. He was born in Sardinia, ordained a |reader| at Rome, and in 340 consecrated bp. of Vercelli. St. Ambrose, in a letter to the church there (Ep.63), especially commends him as the first Western bishop who joined monastic discipline with the discharge of episcopal duties. He took several of his clergy to live with him, and adopted a kind of monastic rule for their daily life. In 354 (Jaffé, Reg. Pontif. p.15) he was asked by Liberius, bp. of Rome, to go with Lucifer of Cagliari and others to Constantius, to suggest the summoning of a council on the disputes between the Arians and the orthodox. The council was held in the next year at Milan. At first Eusebius absented himself, but ultimately yielded to the united solicitations of the Arian party, of Lucifer and Pancratius, the orthodox delegates of Liberius, and of the emperor. The proceedings were somewhat disorderly, and the action of the bp. of Milan was undecided. The practical question was whether the bishops present should sign a condemnation of Athanasius. Eusebius was so peremptory in refusing as to excite the anger of the Arianizing emperor, who banished him, together with some priests and deacons, to Scythopolis in Syria. Patrophilus, a leading Arian, was bp. there, and Eusebius calls him his |jailer.| During his confinement here, two messengers arrived with money and assurances of goodwill from the churches of Vercelli and neighbourhood. In his reply Eusebius gave full particulars of his annoying treatment at Scythopolis. He was a troublesome prisoner, having twice all but starved himself to death because he would not accept provisions from Arian hands. After a while he was removed to Cappadocia, and thence to Egypt. From the Thebaid in Egypt he wrote to Gregory, bp. of Elvira in Spain, praising his anti-Arian constancy. Julian, succeeding Constantius in 361, permitted all banished bishops to return. Eusebius went to Alexandria to consult with Athanasius. The two bishops convoked a council in 362 at Alexandria. One of its objects was to end a schism at Antioch, and after it was over Eusebius went thither to bear a synodal letter or |tome| from the council to the Antiochenes. But Lucifer of Cagliari had preceded him and aggravated the schism by the hasty consecration of Paulinus as a rival bishop; and Eusebius immediately withdrew from Antioch. [[218]Meletius: Paulinus (6).] Lucifer renounced communion with Eusebius and with all who, in accordance with the decree of the Alexandrian council, were willing to receive back bishops who repented their connexion with Arian heresy. Leaving Antioch, Eusebius visited Eastern churches to confirm them in the orthodox faith. Thence he passed into Illyria, and so to Italy, which, in the words of Jerome, |put off its mourning on Eusebius's return.| He now joined the zealous Hilary of Poictiers in endeavours to re-establish orthodoxy in the West. With this view they stirred up opposition to the Arianizing Auxentius, bp. of Milan, but were foiled by his profession of orthodoxy. This was in 364; nothing more is recorded of Eusebius until his death, placed by Jerome in 371.

His extant writings are three letters: one a brief reply to Constantius, that he would attend the council at Milan, but would do there whatever should seem to him right and according to the will of God; and the two to the church at Vercelli and to Gregory of Elvira. They are in Galland, Bibl. Patrum, and Migne, Patr. Lat. t. xii. Jerome says that Eusebius translated, omitting what was heterodox, the commentaries on the Psalms by his namesake of Caesarea; and also names him, with Hilary of Poictiers, as a translator of Origen and the same Eusebius; but nothing further is known of these translations. A famous Codex Vercellensis is thus described by Tregelles: |A MS. of the 4th cent., said to have been written by the hand of Eusebius bp. of Vercelli, where the codex is now preserved. The text is defective in several places, as might be supposed from its very great age. It was transcribed and pub. by Irici, at Milan, in 1748. . . . This MS. is probably the most valuable exemplar of the old Latin in its unaltered state.| The chief authority for his Life is St. Jerome, who places him amongst his Viri Illustres, and alludes to him in his letters and elsewhere. There are several letters addressed to him by Liberius, and allusions to him in Athanasius. He is mentioned also by Rufinus, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Socrates. The Sermones relating to him among the works of Ambrose are admittedly spurious. In the Journ. of Theol. Studies, vol. i. p.126, Mr. C. H. Turner raised the two questions whether Eusebius of Vercelli was the author of the Seven Books on the Trinity by the Pseudo-Vigilius of Thapsus, and whether he could have been the author of Quicunque Vult; and subsequently in the same vol. the Rev. A. E. Burn offered proof that Eusebius was the author of the work of Pseudo-Vigilius, but that there are strong reasons against supposing that he could have written Quicunque, although he says the latter theory throws new light on the history of the theological terms used in the creed.

[J.LL.D.]

Eusebius (96), presbyter, confessor at Rome
Eusebius (96), Aug.14, presbyter, confessor at Rome a.d.358, and by some styled martyr. >From the earliest times his fame has been everywhere celebrated. A church dedicated to him is mentioned in the first council held at Rome under pope Symmachus, a.d.498 (Mansi, viii.236, 237). It was rebuilt by pope Zacharias, c.742 (Anastas. Lib. Pontif. art. |Zacharias,| No.216). The facts of his history are very obscure. His Acts (Baluz. Miscell. t. ii. p.141) relate that upon the recall of pope Liberius by Constantius, Eusebius preached against them both as Arians; and since the orthodox party, who now supported Felix, were excluded from all the churches, he continued to hold divine service in his own house. For this he was brought before Constantius and Liberius, when he boldly reproved the pope for falling away from Catholic truth. Constantius thereupon consigned him to a dungeon four feet wide, where he continued to languish for seven months and then died. He was buried by his friends and co-presbyters Orosius and Gregory, in the cemetery of Callistus, with the simple inscription |Eusebio Homini Dei.| Constantius arrested Gregory for this, and consigned him to the same dungeon, where he also died, and was in turn buried by Orosius, by whom the Acts of Eusebius profess to have been written. The Bollandist and Tillemont point out grave historical difficulties in this narration, especially that Constantius, Liberius, and Eusebius never could have been in the city together. The whole matter is a source of trouble to Roman Catholic writers, because the saintly character of St. Eusebius, guaranteed by the Roman martyrology as revised by pope Gregory XIII., seems necessarily to involve the condemnation of Liberius. The Bollandists at great length vindicate the catholicity of Felix II., and are equally zealous champions of St. Eusebius. Tillemont and Hefele (Hist. of Councils, ii. § 81, |Pope Liberius and the Third Sirmian Formula|) are equally decided opponents of Felix.

[G.T.S.]

Eusebius (99), presbyter of Cremora
Eusebius (99), of Cremona, presbyter, a friend of St. Jerome, through whose writings he is known. He was with Jerome at Bethlehem in 393, and became the unconscious means of extending into Italy the strife concerning Origenism which had begun at Jerusalem. Epiphanius had written to John, bp. of Jerusalem, in vindication of his conduct on his recent visit to Palestine, a.d.394. Eusebius, not knowing Greek, begged Jerome to translate it. This Jerome did in a cursory manner (ad Pammachium, Ep.57, § 2, ed. Vall.), and the document was stolen from the cell of Eusebius by one whom Jerome believed to be in the service of Rufinus (cont. Ruf. iii.4). Rufinus apparently sent the translated letter to Rome, accusing Jerome of having falsified the original. Eusebius remained at Bethlehem till Easter, 398, when he was obliged to return hastily to Italy.

On arriving in Rome, he became an agent of Jerome's party in the Origenistic controversy. He lived at first on good terms with Rufinus, who, however, afterwards accused him of having come to Rome |to bark against him.| Rufinus was then engaged in translating the peri archon of Origen for the use of his friends, leaving out some of the most objectionable passages. Eusebius sent a copy of this to Bethlehem, where Jerome denounced it as a mistranslation. Rufinus replied that Eusebius had obtained an imperfect copy, either by bribing the copyist or by other wrong means, and had also tampered with the MS. St. Jerome, however, vehemently defends his friend from these accusations (cont. Ruf. iii.5). Pope Anastasius being entirely ignorant of Origen and his teaching, Eusebius, together with Marcella and Pammachius, brought before him certain passages from Origen's writings (Anastasius ad Simplicianum in Jerome, Ep.95, ed. Vall.), which so moved him that he at once condemned Origen and all his works. Eusebius being about to return to Cremona in 400, the pope charged him in the letter just quoted to Simplicianus, bp. of Milan, and he there set forth the same passages of Origen which he had laid before the pope. He was confronted, however, by Rufinus, who declared these passages to be false; and Eusebius continued his journey without having induced Simplicianus to condemn Origen. After this we hear nothing of Eusebius for some 20 years. He appears to have remained in Italy supporting Jerome's interests and corresponding with him. At the extreme end of Jerome's life we still find Eusebius writing to him and sending him books relating to the Pelagian heresy (ad Alyp. et Aug. Ep.143), and receiving from Jerome the last of his Commentaries, that on Jeremiah (Prol. to Comm. on Jer. in vol. iv.833).

[W.H.F.]

Eusebius (126), eunuch under Constantius II
Eusebius (126), eunuch, and grand chamberlain under Constantius II. Socrates (ii.2, 16) relates that, after the death of Constantine in 337, Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, bestirring themselves on behalf of the Arians, made use of a certain presbyter in high favour with Constantius, who had before been instrumental in recalling Arius from exile. He persuaded Eusebius the head chamberlain to adopt Arian opinions, and the rest of the chamberlains followed, and prevailed on the empress also. In 359 Eusebius was the mainspring of the plan of Eudoxius and others for dividing the council to be held on the subject of Arianism, making the Western bishops sit at Rimini, the Eastern at Seleucia; part of those in the secret were to sit at each council, and try to gain over their opponents to Arian views. Laymen of influence favoured the plan in order to please the chamberlain (Soz. H. E. iv.16). On the death of Constantius in 361 Eusebius tried to curry favour with Julian by assuring him of the loyalty of the East (Amm. xxi.15, § 4); but was unable to avert what Ammianus and Philostorgius represent as the just reward of his deeds. One of the first acts of Julian was to condemn him to death (ib. xxii.3, § 12). Ammianus describes him as the prime mover of all the court intrigues of his day, and sarcastically calls the emperor one of his favourites (ib. xviii.4, § 33).

[W.M.S. AND M.F.A.]

Eustathius, bishop of Berrhoea
Eustathius (3), bp. of Berrhoea in Syria, then of Antioch, c. a.d.324-331, designated by Theodoret (H. E. i.7) |the Great,| one of the earliest and most vigorous opponents of Arianism, venerated for his learning, virtues, and eloquence (Soz. H. E. i.2, ii.19; Theod. H. E. i.20), recognized by Athanasius as a worthy fellow-labourer for the orthodox faith (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). He was a native of Side in Pamphylia (Hieron. de Vir. Illus. c.85). The title of |confessor| given him by Athanasius more than once (t. i. pp.702, 812) indicates that he suffered in the persecution of Diocletian. As bp. of Berrhoea he was one of the orthodox prelates to whom Alexander of Alexandria sent a copy of his letter to Alexander of Constantinople, concerning Arius and his errors (Theod. H. E. i.4). His translation from Berrhoea is placed by Sozomen after the council of Nicaea (Soz. H. E. i.2). Theodoret states more correctly that he sat at that council as bp. of Antioch, and that his election to that see was the unanimous act of the bishops, presbyters, and faithful laity of the city and province (Theod. H.E. i.7). According to Theodoret he was the immediate successor of Philogonius; but, according to the Chronicle of Jerome, Theophanes, and others, a certain Paulinus, not the Paulinus of Tyre, intervened for a short time (Tillem. vol. vii. p.22, n. i. p.646). At the council of Nicaea Eustathius occupied one of the first, if not the very first place among the assembled prelates (Facund. viii.4). That he occupied the seat of honour at the emperor's right hand and pronounced the panegyrical address to Constantine is asserted by Theodoret (H. E. i.7), but contradicted by Sozomen (H. E. i.19), who assigns the dignity to Eusebius of Caesarea. Eusebius himself maintains a discreet silence, but he evidently wishes it to be inferred that the place of honour was his own (Eus. de Vit. Const. iii.11). On his return to Antioch Eustathius banished those of his clergy suspected of Arian tenets and resolutely rejected all ambiguous submissions. Among those whom he refused to receive were Stephen, Leontius, ho apokopos, and Eudoxius (who successively occupied his episcopal seat after his deposition), George of Laodicea, Theodosius of Tripolis, and Eustathius of Sebaste (Athan. Hist. Arian. § 5). In his writings and sermons he lost no opportunity of declaring the Nicene faith, and shewing its agreement with Holy Scripture. Theodoret (H. E. i.8) specially mentions one of his sermons on Prov. viii.22, and gives a long extract. The troubled relations of Eustathius with the two Eusebii may be dated from the council of Nicaea. At this synod Eusebius of Caesarea and Eustathius were rivals both in theological views and for favour with the emperor. To one of Eustathius's uncompromising orthodoxy, Eusebius appeared a foe to the truth, the more dangerous on account of his ability and the subtlety which veiled his heretical proclivities. Eustathius denounced him as departing from the Nicene faith. Eusebius retorted with the charge of Sabellianism, accusing Eustathius of holding one only personality in the Deity (Socr. H. E. i.23; Soz. H. E. ii.18; Theod. H. E. i.21). Eusebius of Nicomedia and Theognis of Nicaea, in their progress of almost royal magnificence to Jerusalem, passed through Antioch, and had a fraternal reception from Eustathius, and left with every appearance of friendship. Their inspection of the sacred buildings over, Eusebius returned to Antioch with a large cortège of partisan bishops -- Aetius of Lydda, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Theodotus of Laodicea, and Eusebius of Caesarea. The cabal entered Antioch with the air of masters. The plot had been maturing in their absence. Witnesses were prepared with charges against the bishop of incontinency and other gross crimes. Eustathius was summoned before this self-constituted tribunal, and, despite the opposition of the better-minded bishops and the absence of trustworthy evidence, was condemned for heresy, profligacy, and tyrannical conduct, and deposed from his bishopric. This aroused the indignation of the people of Antioch, who took up arms in defence of their beloved bishop. Some of the magistrates and other officials headed the movement. An artfully coloured account of these disturbances and Eustathius's complicity in them was transmitted to Constantine. A count was dispatched to quell the sedition and to put the sentence of the council into execution. Eustathius submitted to constituted authority. Accompanied by many of his clergy, he left Antioch without resistance or manifesting any resentment (Socr. H. E. i.24; Soz. H. E. ii.19; Theod. H. E. i.21; Philost. H. E. ii.7; Eus. Vit. Const. iii.59). He appears to have spent the larger part of his exile at Philippi, where he died, c.337. The date of his deposition was probably at the end of 330 or beginning of 331 (Tillem. Mém. eccl. vol. vii. note 3, sur Saint Eustathe; Wetter, Restitutio verae Chronolog. rerum contra Arian. Gest.; de Broglie, L'Eglise et l'Empire, c. vii.). The deposition of Eustathius led to a lamentable schism in the church of Antioch, which lasted nearly a century, not being completely healed till the episcopate of Alexander, a.d.413-420.

Eustathius was a copious writer, and is much praised by early authorities (Soz. H. E. ii.19; Hieron. Ep.70 , ad Magnum). We possess only scattered fragments and one entire work, named by Jerome de Engastrimytho adv. Origenem. In this he attacks Origen with great vehemence, ridicules him as a poluistor, and controverts his idea that the prophet Samuel was actually called up by the witch of Endor (Gall. Vet. Patr. Bibl. vol. iv., and Migne, Patr. vol. xviii. pp.614 ff.). In Texte und Untersuchungen (1886), ii.4, a new ed. of this treatise was edited by A. Zahn. Fabr. Bibl. Graec. vol. ix. pp.131 ff. ed. Harles; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.187; Migne, Patr. t. ix. pp.131 ff.; Tillem. u.s. pp.21 ff.; De Broglie, op. cit. t. ii. pp.294 ff.

[E.V.]

Eustathius, bp. of Sebaste
Eustathius (4), bp. of Sebaste (the modern Siwas) in Pontus, on the N. bank of the Halys, the capital of Armenia Minor (c. a.d.357-380). Eustathius occupies a place more conspicuous than honourable in the unhappy dissensions between the adherents of the orthodox faith and the various shades of Arian, semi-Arian, and Anomoean heresy during the middle of the 4th cent. Originally a disciple of Arius, after repeated approaches to the Nicene faith, with occasional professions of accepting it, he probaby ended his days as a Eunomian heretic (Basil. Ep.244 , § 9). Few in that epoch of conflicting creeds and formularies ever signed more various documents. Basil enumerates his signature of the formularies of Ancyra, Seleucia, Constantinople, Lampsacus, Nice in Thrace, and Cyzicus, which are sufficiently diverse to indicate the vagueness of his theology (Basil. l.c.). Eustathius thus naturally forfeited the confidence of all schools of theology. His personal character appears to have been high. There must have been something more than common in a man who could secure the affection and respect for many years of Basil the Great, as, in Basil's own strong language, |exhibiting something more than man| (Ep.212 , § 2). As bishop he manifested his care for the sick and needy, and was unwearied in the fulfilment of duty. The system of coenobitic monasticism introduced by him into Asia Basil took as his model (Soz. H. E. iii.14; Basil. Ep.223 , § 3).

Eustathius was born in the Cappodocian Caesarea towards the beginning of the 4th cent. He studied at Alexandria under the heresiarch Arius (c. a.d.320) (Basil. Ep.223 , § 3; 244 , § 9; 263 , § 3). On leaving Alexandria he repaired to Antioch, where he was refused ordination on account of his Arian tenets by his orthodox namesake (Athan. Solit. p.812). He was afterwards ordained by Eulalius (c.331), but very speedily degraded by him for refusing to wear the clerical dress (Socr. H. E. ii.43; Soz. H. E. iv.24). From Antioch Eustathius returned to Caesarea, where he obtained ordination from the orthodox bp. Hermogenes, on declaring his unqualified adhesion to the Nicene faith (Basil. Ep.244 , § 9; 263 , § 3). On the death of Hermogenes, Eustathius repaired to
Constantinople and attached himself to Eusebius, the bishop there, |the Coryphaeus of the Arian party| (Basil. ll.cc.). By him he was a second time deposed (c. a.d.342) on the ground of some unspecified act of unfaithfulness to duty (Soz. H. E. iv.24). He retired again to Caesarea, where, carefully concealing his Arian proclivities, he sought to commend himself to the bishop, Dianius. His subsequent history till he became bp. of Sebaste is almost a blank. We must, however, assign to it the theological argument held by him and Basil of Ancyra with the audacious Anomoean, Aetius, who is regarded by Basil as in some sense Eustathius's pupil (Basil. Ep.123, § 5). It was certainly during this period that Eustathius and his early friend the presbyter Aerius founded coenobitic monachism in Armenia and the adjacent provinces (Epiphan. Haer.75, § 2). The rule laid down by him for the government of his religious communities of both sexes contained extravagances alluded to by Socrates and Sozomen, which are not unlikely to have been the cause, otherwise unknown, of his excommunication by the council of Neo-Caesarea (Socr. H. E. ii.43; Soz. H. E. iv.24). While Eustathius was regulating his coenobitic foundations (c.358) he was visited by Basil, who records the delight with which he saw the coarse garments, the girdle, the sandals of undressed hide, and witnessed the self-denying and laborious lives of Eustathius and his followers. His admiration for such a victory over the world and the flesh dispelled all suspicions of Arian sentiments, and the desire to spread them secretly, which had been rumoured (Basil. Ep.223 , § 3). After Basil had retired to the banks of the Iris and commenced his own monastic life, he and his brother Gregory received frequent visits from Eustathius, who, with them, would visit Annesi, the residence of their mother Macrina, and spend there whole days and nights in friendly theological discussion (ib. § 5).

Eustathius's episcopate must have begun before 357, when Athanasius speaks of him as a bishop (Athan. Orat. in Arian. i. p.290; Solit. p.812). He was made bp. of Sebaste, according to the same authority, by the Arian party, who hoped to find him an able and facile instrument. His early companion Aerius was a candidate for the bishopric, and felt very mortified by his failure. Eustathius shewed him the utmost consideration, ordained him presbyter, and appointed him manager of a refuge for the poor, the foundation of which was one of the first acts of his episcopate. The final rupture between them is detailed under Aerius. Somewhere about this time we may place Eustathius's conviction of perjury in the council of Antioch (see Socr. H. E. iv.24), and his deposition by the obscure council of Melitene in Armenia c. a.d.357 (Basil. Ep.263 ). Neither of these events appears to have entailed any lasting consequences. Eustathius was one of the prelates at the semi-Arian synod summoned at Ancyra by George of Laodicea, before Easter a.d.358, to check the alarming spread of Anomoean doctrines, and he, with Basil of Ancyra and Eleusius of Cyzicus, conveyed the synodal letter, equally repudiating the Anomoean and Homoousian doctrines, and declaring for the Homoiousion, to Constantius at Sirmium (Soz. H. E. iv.13, 14; Basil. Ep.263 , § 3). When the council met at Seleucia on Sept.27, 359, Eustathius occupied a prominent place in its tumultuous and indecisive proceedings, and was the head of the ten episcopal deputies, Basil of Ancyra, Silvanus of Tarsus, and Eleusius of Cyzicus being other chief members, sent to Constantinople to lay their report before Constantius. Stormy discussions followed, in which Eustathius led the semi-Arians as against the pure Arians. He vehemently denounced the blasphemies of the bold Anomoean, Eudoxius, bp. of Antioch, and produced a formulary of faith declaring the dissimilarity of the Father and the Son, which he asserted to be by Eudoxius. All seemed to augur the triumph of orthodoxy when the arrival of Valens and Ursacius from Ariminum announcing the subjugation of the Western bishops and the general proscription of the Homoousion suddenly changed the scene. Constantius was overjoyed at the unexpected success, and after a protracted discussion, compelled Eustathius and the other Seleucian deputies to sign the fatal formulary. It was then, in Jerome's words, |ingemuit totus orbis et se esse Arianum miratus est| (Hieron. in Lucif.19). This base concession profited the recreants little. The emperor summoned a synod, of which Acacius was the ruling spirit, at Constantinople in Jan.360. Eustathius was deposed in a tyrannical manner, with Cyril of Jerusalem, Basil of Ancyra, Eleusius of Cyzicus, and other important prelates. Eustathius was not even allowed to defend himself. His former deposition by Eulalius was held sufficient (Socr. H. E. ii.41-43; Soz. H. E. iv.24). Constantius confirmed the sentence, exiled the bishops, and gave their sees to others. The death of Constantius in 361 and the accession of Julian witnessed the recall of Eustathius with the other banished bishops. He immediately repudiated his signature to the creed of Ariminum, and did all he could to shew his horror of pure Arianism. Sozomen tells us that, with Eleusius, Sophronius, and others of like mind, he held several synods, condemning the partisans of Acacius, denouncing the creed of Ariminum, and asserting the Homoiousion as the true mean between the Homoousion of the West and the Anomoeon of Aetius and his followers (H. E. v.14). With the accession of Valens in 364, Arianism once more assumed ascendancy in the East. The semi-Arian party, or Macedonians as they now began to be called, met by imperial permission in council at Lampsacus a.d.365, under the presidency of Eleusius, and repudiated the Acacian council of Constantinople (360) and the creed of Ariminum, renewed the confession of Antioch (In Encaeniis), and pronounced sentence of deposition on Eudoxius and Acacius (Socr. H. E. iv.2-4; Soz. H. E. vi.7). These proceedings irritated Valens, who required them to hold communion with Eudoxius, and, on their refusal, sentenced them to fine and banishment, giving their sees to others. To escape annihilation, the Macedonians sent deputies, Eustathius being one, to the Western emperor Valentinian and Liberius, bp. of Rome, who had repented his lapse in a.d.357, offering to unite with them in faith. Before they arrived, Valentinian had left for Gaul, and Liberius, at first looking coldly on them as Arians, refused to receive them. On their giving a written adhesion to the Nicene Creed and the Homoousion, he received them into communion, and gave them letters in his name and that of the Western church to the prelates of the East, expressing his satisfaction at the proof he had received of the identity of doctrine between East and West (Socr. H. E. iv.12; Soz. H. E. vi.11). No mention was made of the new Macedonian heresy concerning the Holy Spirit, now infecting the Eastern church, of which Eustathius and the other deputies were among the chief promulgators. Eustathius and his companions at once repaired to Sicily, where a synod of bishops, on their profession of orthodoxy, gave them letters of communion. They then returned to their own country. A synod of orthodox bishops was assembled in 367 at Tyana, to receive the letters of communion from the West and other documents (Soz. l.c.; Basil. Ep.244 , § 5). Eustathius and his fellow-delegates, now recognized as true Catholics, were acknowledged as the rightful bishops of their sees. A council summoned at Tarsus to consolidate this happy reunion was prohibited by Valens, who, having committed himself to the Arian party, issued an edict expelling all bishops restored by Julian. Eustathius, to save himself, signed a formula at Cyzicus of Homoiousian character, which also denied the divinity of the Holy Spirit. Basil says tersely of Eustathius and his party, |they saw Cyzicus and returned with a different creed| (Basil. u.s. and § 9; 226 ).

On Basil's elevation to the episcopate in 370 Eustathius exhibited great joy, and professed an earnest desire to be of service to his friend. He recommended persons as fellow-helpers who, as Basil bitterly complains, turned out to be spies of his actions and words, interpreting all in a malevolent sense and reporting to their chief (ib.223 , § 3). For their subsequent bitter relations, see Basilius of Caesarea. Eustathius heaped calumnies on the head of his former associate, openly charging him with Apollinarian and other heretical views, and encouraged the clergy of his diocese and province to form a rival communion. Demosthenes, the Vicar of the Prefect, an old enemy of Basil, strenuously forwarded this object. In 376 he visited Sebaste and other chief places in the province, oppressing Basil's adherents, whom he compelled to undertake onerous and costly public duties, and loading the followers of Eustathius with the highest honours (ib.237 , § 2). Eustathius, seeing Arianism in the ascendant, openly sought communion with those whom he had repeatedly denounced. His deposition at Constantinople was not forgotten by the Arians, who had not hitherto recognized him as a canonical bishop. He now sought their goodwill by humiliating concessions. He had overthrown the altars of Basilides, bp. of Gangra, as an Arian, but now begged admission to his communion. He had treated the people of Amasea as heretics, excommunicating Elpidius for holding intercourse with them, and now earnestly sought their recognition. At Ancyra, the Arians refusing him public recognition, he submitted to communicate with them in private houses. When the Arian bishops met in synod at Nyssa he sent a deputation of his clergy to invite them to Sebaste, conducted them through the province with every mark of honour, allowed them to preach and celebrate the Eucharist in his churches, and withheld no mark of the most intimate communion (ib.257 , § 3). These humiliations had but tardy and partial success in obtaining his public acknowledgment by the dominant ecclesiastics. His efforts to secure Arian favour and his effrontery in trading upon his former recognition by Liberius extorted from Basil a vehement letter of remonstrance, addressed to the bp. of Rome and the other Western bishops, depicting the evils inflicted on the Eastern church by the wolves in sheep's clothing, and requesting Liberius to declare publicly the terms on which Eustathius had been admitted to communion (ib.263 , § 3). All Basil's efforts to obtain this mark of sympathy and brotherly recognition from the West were fruitless. He continued to be harassed by the unscrupulous attacks of Eustathius till his death in 379. If the see was vacated by his death, and not, as Hefele holds, with much probability, by his deposition at Gangra, Eustathius died soon after. In 380 Peter became bp. of Sebaste, and thus Basil's brother replaced Basil's most dangerous enemy.

The synod of Gangra, of uncertain date [D. C. A., s.v.], is intimately connected with the name of Eustathius. The identity of the Eustathius there condemned with the bp. of Sebaste, though affirmed by every ancient authority, has been denied by Blondel (De la primauté, p.138), Baronius (Annal. iii. ann.361, n.53), Du Pin (Nouvelle bibliothèque, ii.339) and called in question by Tillemont (Mém. eccl. ix. note 28, S. Basile); but on careful investigation Hefele (Hist. of the Church Councils, ii.325 ff. Engl. trans.) scouts the idea that another Eustathius is intended. C. F. Loots Eust. of Seb., Halle, 1898.

[E.V.]

Eustathius (22), bp. of Berytus
Eustathius (22), bp. of Berytus (Beyrout), a time-serving prelate attached to the court, who kept steadily in view the aggrandizement and independence of his see of Berytus, then suffragan to Tyre. As a bishop of some consideration for theological knowledge, he was appointed commissioner, with Photius of Tyre and Uranius of Himera, by Theodosius II., a.d.448, to examine the tenets of Ibas of Edessa, charged by the monastic party with favouring the Nestorian heresy. This commission, dated Oct.26, 448, and addressed to Damasus, the secretary of state (Labbe, Conc. iv.638), was opened at Berytus, Feb.1, a.d.449. In the residence of Eustathius, recently erected by him near his magnificent new church. Ibas indignantly disclaimed the blasphemies attributed to him, and produced a protest, signed by a large number of his clergy, that they had never heard him utter words contrary to the faith (ib. p.637). The accusation broke down. But the investigation was revived a week or two afterwards at Tyre (ib.635). Eustathius and his brother commissioners drew up a concordat, which was signed, Feb.25, by Ibas and his accusers, and countersigned by Eustathius and Photius (ib.632). At the second council of Ephesus, the disgraceful |Robbers' Synod,| Aug.8, 449, Eustathius, Eusebius of Ancyra, and Basil of Seleucia were the imperial commissioners (ib.1079). Eustathius lent all his influence to Dioscorus and the dominant party against the venerable Flavian, voting for the rehabilitation of Eutyches and declaring that he had stated the true faith in perfect conformity to the doctrine of godliness (ib.262). In 450, through the influence of pope Leo and his legates at Constantinople, Eustathius's name was erased from the diptychs of the church as an accomplice in Flavian's violent death. He and his associates, however, were allowed to retain their sees, in the hope that this leniency might lead them to repent (Leo Magn. Ep.60). The feeble Theodosius II. being now replaced by the orthodox and vigorous Marcian, Eustathius found it politic to change his camp, and at the council of Chalcedon promptly abandoned Dioscorus, declaring his agreement in faith with Flavian, and with exaggerated expressions of penitence asking pardon for his share in the acts of the recent synod (Labbe iv.141, 176, 177). The abject humiliation of Eustathius and his party prevailed with the orthodox bishops, who acquitted them as mere tools of Dioscorus and received them as brothers (ib.508-509). At a later session of the council, Oct.20, the issue between Eustathius and Photius of Tyre was discussed (ib.539). As a reward for his support of the court party at the |Latrocinium,| Eustathius had obtained from Theodosius a decree giving metropolitical rank to Berytus (Lupus, in Canon.950). Flavian's successor Anatolius, together with Maximus of Antioch and other court bishops, had consequently, at the close of 449, dismembered the diocese of Tyre and assigned five churches to the formerly suffragan see of Berytus (Labbe, iv.542-546). Photius, disregarding this, and continuing to consecrate bishops for these churches, was excommunicated by Anatolius, and the prelates he had consecrated were deposed and degraded by Eustathius (ib.530). Photius submitted to this interference on the threat of deposition, protesting that he did so by constraint. The council supported him, maintained the ancient prerogatives of the metropolitical see of Tyre, and pronounced the acts of Eustathius void.

When in 457 the emperor Leo, anxious to give peace to the church of Alexandria, dealt with the intrusion of Timothy Aelurus, Eustathius was consulted, and joined in the condemnation of that intruding patriarch (ib.890). The church built by Eustathius at Berytus is described by Zacharias Scholasticus as de mundi opificio. Tillem. Mém. eccl. xv.; Le Quien, Oriens Christ. ii.818; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.440.

[E.V.]

Eustochium, 3rd daughter of Paula
Eustochium, 3rd daughter of PAULA, the friend of Jerome, from whose writings all that is known of her is gathered. Born probably c.370, she had shared from her earliest days the ascetic views of her mother, and was confirmed in them by frequenting the house of Marcella (Hieron. i.952, ed. Vallarsi). Her uncle Hymettius, with his wife Praetextata (see Thierry's St. Jérôme, i.161), endeavoured to wean her from these by inviting her to their house, changing her attire, and placing her among the mirrors and the flattery of a patrician reception-room (Hieron. i.394, 683); but she resisted their seductions and took the vow of perpetual virginity, being the first Roman lady of noble birth to do so (i.394). Jerome addressed to her his celebrated treatise de Virginitate Servandâ (i.88), in which vivid pictures of Roman society enforce the superior sanctity of the state of virginity. This treatise excited great animosity against Jerome, and was one cause of his leaving Rome and returning to Palestine. Paula and Eustochium resolving to go there also, embarked in 385 at Portus. At Bethlehem they built and managed the hospice and convent, and from her mother's death in 404 Eustochium was its head till her own death in 418, two years before that of Jerome. Many passages in Jerome's writings give a picture of her character and manner of life. Small in stature (i.290), she had great courage and decision of character (i.394), and followed the ascetic teaching of Jerome and her mother with unwavering confidence and enthusiasm (i.402, 403). She spoke Greek and Latin with equal facility, and learnt Hebrew to sing the Psalms in the original (i.720). Jerome praises her skill in the training of virgins, whom she led in all acts of devotion (i.290) and to whom she set an example by undertaking all menial offices (i.403). She was eager to increase her knowledge of the Scriptures, and to her importunity Jerome ascribes the writing of many of his commentaries, which were dedicated to her and her mother, and afterwards to her and her niece the younger Paula, who, with the younger Melania, was her coadjutor in her convent work and her study of Scripture. She is reckoned a saint in the Roman church, her festival being Sept.28.

[W.H.F.]

Eustochius (6), patriarch of Jerusalem
Eustochius (6), patriarch of Jerusalem, in succession to Peter, and, according to Papebroch, from a.d.544 to 556. On the death of Peter, Eustochius, oeconomus of the church of Alexandria but residing at Constantinople, was favoured by the emperor Justinian in preference to Macarius, an Origenist, who had been first elected. At the synod of Constantinople, 553 Eustochius was represented by three legates, Stephanus bp. of Raphia, Georgius bp. of Tiberias, Damasus bp. of Sozusa or Sozytana (Mansi, ix.173 c.); and when the acts m condemnation of Origenism were sent by the emperor to Jerusalem, all the bishops of Palestine except Alexander of Abila confirmed them. But in the monasteries of that province, and especially in that named the New Laura, the partisans of the proscribed opinions grew daily more powerful, notwithstanding the resolute efforts of the patriarch against them. In 555, after eight months of persistent admonition, Eustochius went in person, with the dux Anastasius, to the New Laura, and forcibly expelled the whole body, replacing them by 60 monks from the principal laura and 60 from other orthodox monasteries of the desert, under the prior Joannes. Origenism was thus rooted out of Palestine. According to Victor Tununensis, Eustochius was removed from the patriarchate, and Macarius restored. Cyrillus Scythopol. in Coteler. Monum. Eccles. Graec. iii.373; Evagr. H. E. iv.37, 38; Victor Tunun. in Patr. Lat. lxviii.962 A; Theoph. Chronog. A.M.6060; Papebroch, Patriarch. Hierosol. in Boll. Acta SS. Intro. to vol. iii. of May, p. xxvii.; Le Quien, Or. Chr. iii.210. Pagi (ann.561 iii.) discusses the chronology. See also Clinton, F. R.537, 557.

[C.H.]

Euthalius (5), deacon of Alexandria
Euthalius (5), a deacon of Alexandria, afterwards bp. of Sulca; fl. a.d.459. This date is confirmed by the fact that his works are dedicated to Athanasius the Younger, who was bp. of Alexandria about that time. Euthalius appears to have been then a deacon, devoted to the study of the N.T. text. He is now best known as the author of the Euthalian Sections.

The books of N.T. were written without any division into chapters, verses, or words. The first steps towards such a convenient division seem to have proceeded from the wish for easy reference to parallel passages. This was done by what are known as the Ammonian Sections, together with the Eusebian Canons. [[224]Eusebius of Caesarea.] Ammonius of Alexandria, in the 3rd cent., is generally credited with dividing the gospels into sections, but the principle had not been applied to other books of N.T. Euthalius introduced a system of division into all those not yet divided, except the Apocalypse, which spread rapidly over the whole Greek church and has become, by its presence or absence, a valuable test of the antiquity of a MS. In the Epp. of St. Paul, Euthalius tells us, he adopted the scheme of a certain |father,| whose name is nowhere given. But by his other labours, and the further critical apparatus which he supplied, Euthalius procured for it the acceptance it soon obtained. In Romans there were 19 capitula; in Galatians, 12; in Ephesians, 10; in I. Thessalonians, 7; in II. Thessalonians, 6; in Hebrews, 22; in Philemon, 2; and so on.

Three points in connexion with the text especially occupied Euthalius.

(1) The Larger Sections or Lessons. Fixed lessons for public worship no doubt passed from the synagogue into the Christian church, at least as soon as the canon was settled. But there seems to have been little or no uniformity in them. Individual churches had divisions of their own. The scheme proposed by Euthalius, however, speedily became general in all
Greek-speaking churches. The whole N.T., except the Gospels and Apocalypse, was divided into 57 portions of very varying length (in Acts there were 16; in the Pauline Epp.31; 5 in Rom.; 5 in I. Cor.; 4 in II. Cor.; in the Catholic Epp.10; 2 in James; 2 in I. Pe.; 1 in II. Pe., etc.) Of these, 53 were for Sundays, which seem alone to have been provided for in the Alexandrian Synaxes, and Mill supposes that the other 4 were for Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Epiphany (Proleg. in N.T. p.90).

(2) The smaller divisions were the well known stichoi -- i.e. |lines| (Lat. versus), each containing either a few words complete in themselves, or as much as it was possible to read without effort at one breath. Like that of the capitula formerly spoken of, the plan of these |verses| was not introduced by Euthalius. It had already been adopted in some of the poetical books, and in poetical parts of the prose books of the O.T. The LXX had occasionally employed it. It had been sanctioned by Origen. The Vulgate had used it, and it is found in the psalms of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. It had been partially applied to N.T., for Origen speaks of the 100 stichoi of II. and III. John., of a few in St. Paul's Epistles, and very few in I. John; while Eustathius of Antioch, in the 4th cent., is said to reckon 135 from John viii.59 to x.31 (Scrivener, Intro. to Codex D, p.17). But these figures shew that many of these divisions cannot have been stichoi in the strict sense, but of very unequal length, and generally much larger. What was before partially and imperfectly done Euthalius extended upon better principles and with greater care. In Rom. he made 920 such stichoi; in Gal.293; in Eph.312; in I. Thess.193; in II. Thess.106; in Heb.703; in Philemon, 37; and so on.

(3) The third part of his labour was an enumeration of all the quotations from O.T., and even from profane writers, found in those books of N.T. of which he treated. These he numbered in one catalogue; assigned to the various books whence they were taken in a second; and quoted at length in a third. If we may look upon the Argumenta as really the work of Euthalius, and not, as Zacagnius argues (Praef. p.60), as the production of a later hand, he went also into the substance and meaning of the books edited by him, as the Argumenta contain short and excellent summaries of them. Euthalius also wrote a short Life of St. Paul, prefixed to his work on the 14 epistles of that apostle, but it is bald and meagre. It has been said that he also wrote comments on Acts and Luke; and that in an ancient catena on Romans there were fragments of his writings; but these statements seem to be incorrect (ib. p.71).

In later life he became a bishop, and was known as Episcopus Sulcensis. Scrivener suggests Sulci in Sardinia as the only see of that name (Intr. p.53, n.1), but so distant a place is unlikely. Zacagnius thinks that Sulca may represent Psilca, a city of the Thebaid near Syene; but Galland throws doubt on this, and the point must be left unsolved.

His works remained long unknown, but in 1698 they were ed. and pub. at Rome by Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius, praefect of the Vatican Library, in vol. i. of his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae, in the long preface of which different questions relating to Euthalius are discussed with much care. This ed. has been printed in Galland (Biblioth. Pat. x.197) and in Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxv.621). Notices of Euthalius may be found in the Prolegomena of N. T. of Wetstein and Mill, and in Scrivener's Intro. to the Criticism of N.T. But much light has recently been thrown on Euthalius by Dean Armitage Robinson in his |Euthaliana| (Texts and Stud. iii.3), and in an article |Recent Work on Euthalius| in the Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. p.87, Oct.1904. In the latter art. the recent work on the subject by Von Soden and Zahn is noticed.

[W.M.]

Eutherius (2), bp. of Tyana
Eutherius (2), bp. of Tyana, a leader of the Nestorians at the council of Ephesus, a.d.431, and for some time afterwards. Before the council he was in active correspondence with John of Antioch, about the alleged Apollinarianism of Cyril of Alexandria and his adherents (Theod. Ep.112; Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxiii.1310). His name occurs in the various documents addressed to, and issued by, the members of his party collectively at this council. On July 18 John and his adherents were deposed and excommunicated, and Eutherius among them (Act. Co. Eph. acta v.654); his sentence being confirmed at Constantinople before the end of the year. After his return home we find him in friendly correspondence with Firmus of Caesarea, notwithstanding the part Firmus had taken in his excommunication (Firm. Ep.23; Patr. Gk. lxxvii.1498). Firmus was sent to Tyana to ordain a successor to Eutherius, and met with great opposition from the citizens, who were much attached to their bishop. Longras also, the imperial officer in command of the Isaurian troops there, interfered; and both Firmus and the person whom he had ordained were compelled to flee. The newly ordained bishop renounced his orders, and seems to have returned to lay life (Theod. Ep. Hypomnesticon Alex. Hierapolis Synodicon, c.45). After the reconciliation of Cyril and John of Antioch, Eutherius wrote to John to remonstrate with him on his inconsistency and want of loyalty to what he once contended for (ib. c.73, u.s.681); to Alexander of Hierapolis, who was opposed to the reconciliation, a long letter ably defending the position which they and others were still determined to maintain (ib. c.201, u.s.815); and to Helladius bp. of Tarsus, who had also written to Alexander, to encourage him in his opposition, expressing great joy at what he had done (ib. c.74, u.s.684). Eutherius was ultimately banished to Scythopolis, and from thence to Tyre, where he died (ib. c.190, u.s.).

He is the author of a treatise in 17 chapters, with a prefatory letter addressed to Eustathius bp. of Parnassus, which Photius ascribed to Theodoret (Phot. Biblioth. c. xlvi. Migne, Patr. Gk. ciii.79), and which has since been attributed by some to Maximus the Martyr, and by others to Athanasius (Garner's notes on Marius Mercator in Patr. Lat. xlviii.759, 1086, 1087; Fabricius, Biblioth. Graec. ed. Harles, viii.304), in which he subjects the |Scholia| of Cyril of Alexandria, |de Incarnatione Unigeniti| (Mar. Merc. u.s.1066) to elaborate and searching criticism.

[T.W.D.]

Euthymius (4), abbat in Palestine
Euthymius (4), abbat in Palestine, born in 377, at Melitene in Armenia, and placed at an early age under the direction of its bishop, Otreius. After his ordination as priest he was placed in charge of all the monasteries in and near the place. Finding this too great an interruption to his meditations, in his 29th year he escaped to Jerusalem to visit the holy places, and found a home with a community of separate monks at Pharan, 6 miles from Jerusalem. With another hermit, Theoctistus, he used to take long walks into the desert of Cutila at sacred seasons. On one of these occasions, in the 9th year of his stay at Pharan, they came to a tremendous torrent with a cavern on one of its banks. Here they determined to live, lost to the world. They were, however, discovered by some shepherds, who sent them gifts. The fathers of Pharan also found them out, and came at times to see them. About 411 Euthymius began to receive disciples. They turned the cavern into a church, and built a monastery on the side of the ravine. Theoctistus had charge of it. In 420 Euthymius erected a laura, like that of Pharan, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, where he would see inquirers on Saturdays and Sundays, and his advice was always given with captivating sweetness and humility. In 428 the church of his laura was consecrated by Juvenal, the first patriarch of Jerusalem, accompanied by the presbyter Hesychius and the celebrated Passarion, governor of a monastery in Jerusalem.

A new turn was given to the life of Euthymius by a cure which he effected for Terebon, son of Aspebetus, prince of the Saracens, who, hearing of his fame, brought the afflicted boy to his gloomy retreat with a large train of followers. The prayers of Euthymius are said to have restored health to the patient, and the whole company believed on the Lord Jesus. Euthymius ordered a little recess for water to be hollowed out in the side of the cave, and baptized them on the spot, the father taking the name of Peter. His brother-in-law Maris joined the community of anchorets, bestowing all his wealth for the enlargement of the buildings. The story spread over Palestine and the neighbouring countries, and Euthymius was besieged with applications for medical assistance and prayer.

Peter, bp. of the Saracens, on his way to the council at Ephesus, a.d.431, visited Euthymius, who exhorted him to unite with Cyril of Alexandria and Acacius of Melitene, and to do in regard to the creed whatever seemed right to those prelates. When the council of Chalcedon issued its decrees (451), two of his disciples, Stephen and John, who had been present, brought them to their master. The report of his approval spread through the desert, and all the recluses would have shared it but for the influence of the monk Theodosius, whose life and doctrine appear to have been equally unsatisfactory, who even tried hard to persuade Euthymius to reject Chalcedon, but without success.

The empress Eudoxia, an energetic Eutychian, after the death of her husband in 450, went to Jerusalem, and being urged by her brother Valerius to become reconciled to the Catholic church, determined to consult Euthymius. She built a tower about 4 miles S. of his laura, and sent to him Cosmas, guardian of the so-called True Cross at Constantinople, and Anastasius, a bishop. Euthymius came; and after giving his blessing to the empress, advised her that the violent death of her son-in-law, Valentinian, the irruption of the Vandals, the captivity of her daughter Eudoxia and of her grandchildren, might all be attributed to her Eutychian opinions. She should abjure her schism, and embrace the communion of Juvenal, patriarch of Jerusalem. The empress obeyed, and her example was followed by a multitude of monks and laymen. A celebrated anchoret also, Gerasimus, owed his separation from Eutychianism to Euthymius. Euthymius died in 473; his obsequies were celebrated by the patriarch Anastatius and a large number of clergy, among whom are mentioned Chrysippus, guardian of the Cross, and a deacon named Fidus. See Cotelier's ed. of the Vita Euthymii by Cyrillus Scythopolitanus (Cot. Eccl. Graec. Monum. iv.1, Paris, 1692).

[W.M.S.]

Eutyches and Eutychianism
Eutyches (4) and Eutychianism. Eutyches was archimandrite of a monastery near Constantinople. For 70 years (as he told pope Leo) he had lived a monastic life, and during 30 out of them had presided over his 300 monks. He was a staunch upholder of the views and conduct of Cyril of Alexandria, who had even sent him, as a special mark of favour, a copy of the Acts of the council of Ephesus, a.d.431. By whom he was first accused, whether by Theodoret in his Eranistes, or by his former friend, Eusebius of Dorylaeum, or by Domnus of Antioch, it seems difficult to decide (cf. Hefele, ii.319; Martin, 75-78); but it is clear that to Eusebius are due the definite charges first brought against him at Constantinople in 448.

Flavian, who succeeded Proclus in 447 as archbishop, convened a synod in Constantinople on Nov.8, 448, to consider some questions between the metropolitan of Sardis and two of his suffragan bishops. Eusebius of Dorylaeum was present, and at its conclusion complained that Eutyches defamed |the holy Fathers and himself, a man who had never been suspected of heresy,| alleging himself prepared to convict Eutyches of being untrue to the orthodox faith. Flavian listened in astonishment, and suggested that Eusebius should first privately discuss with Eutyches the points in dispute. Eusebius retorted that he had already done this unsuccessfully; he, therefore, implored the synod to summon Eutyches before them, not only to induce him to give up his views, but to prevent infection spreading further. Two deputies, a priest and a deacon, were instructed to read to Eutyches the complaint, and to invite him to attend the synod, which met again on Nov.12. Eusebius asked first for the recital of (a) Cyril's first letter to Nestorius, (b) the approbation of that letter by the council of Ephesus, and (c) Cyril's letter to John of Antioch; secondly, that all present should express acceptance of these documents as true expositions of the Nicene Creed. Flavian and the bishops present accepted these propositions, and a resolution to the same effect was sent to the absentees for their approval and signature. The synod professed its belief in |Jesus Christ the only-begotten Son of God, perfect God and perfect man, of a reasonable soul and body subsisting, begotten before all ages, without beginning; of the Father according to the Godhead, but in these last days for our sake and for our salvation born of the Virgin Mary, according to the manhood; consubstantial with the Father, as touching His Godhead, and consubstantial with the mother, as touching His manhood.| |We confess that Jesus Christ, after the Incarnation, was of two natures in one Hypostasis and in one Person; one Christ, one Son, one Lord. Whosoever asserts otherwise, him we exclude from the clergy and the church| (Mansi, vi.679). At the third session, Nov.15, the deputies announced that Eutyches refused to appear before the synod, alleging that Eusebius had long been his enemy, and had grossly slandered him, for he (Eutyches) was ready to assent to and subscribe the statements of the holy Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus. Certain expressions used by them were, in his opinion, mistakes; in such cases he turned to Holy Scripture, as a safer guide than the Fathers. He worshipped one nature, and that the nature of God incarnate. Reading from a little book which he fetched, Eutyches then, according to the deputies, first protested against a statement falsely ascribed to him -- viz. that the Logos had brought His body from heaven -- and next asserted his inability to find in the writings of the Fathers their belief that our Lord Jesus Christ subsisted of two Persons united in one Hypostasis; adding, that even if he did find such a statement, he must decline to accept it, as not being in Holy Scripture. In his belief, He Who was born of the Virgin Mary was very God and very man, but His body was not of like substance with ours. Eusebius struck in, |This is quite enough to enable us to take action against Eutyches; but let him be summoned a second time.| Two priests were now sent to tell Eutyches that his replies had given great offence; he must come and explain them, as well as meet the charges originally brought against him. They took with them a note saying that if he still refused to appear, it might be necessary to deal with him according to canonical law, and that his determination not to leave his cell was simply an evasion. During their absence, Eusebius brought forward a further charge. Eutyches, he asserted, had written and circulated among the monks a little book on the faith, to which he had requested their signatures. The statement was evidently an exaggeration, but was of sufficient importance for priests and deacons to be at once sent to the neighbouring monasteries to make inquiries. Meanwhile Mamas and Theophilus returned. They reported that they had encountered many obstacles. The monks round the door of the monastery had affirmed the archimandrite to be ill; one Eleusinius had presented himself as representing Eutyches; and it was only on the assurance that the letter, of which they were the bearers, contained neither hard nor secret messages that they at last procured an audience. To the letter Eutyches replied that nothing but death should make him leave his monastery, and that the archbishop and the synod might do what they pleased. In his turn, he wished them to take a letter; and on their refusal announced his intention of sending it to the synod. Eusebius at once broke out, |Guilty men have always some excuse ready; we must bring Eutyches here against his will.| But at the desire of Flavian, two priests (Memnon and Epiphanius) and a deacon (Germanus) were sent to make another effort. They took a letter exhorting Eutyches not to compel the synod to put in force canonical censure, and summoning him before them two days later (Nov.17). The synod met on Nov.16. During the session, information was brought to Flavian that certain monks and deacons, friends of Eutyches, and Abraham, archimandrite of a neighbouring monastery, requested an audience. They were at once admitted. Abraham informed the archbishop that Eutyches was ill, and had deputed him to speak for him. Flavian's reply was paternal and conciliatory. He regretted the illness of Eutyches, and on behalf of those present, expressed their willingness to wait till he was restored. |Let him remember,| he continued, |that he is not coming among strangers, but among men who would receive him with fatherly and brotherly affection, and many of whom have hitherto been his friends. He has pained many, and must defend himself. Surely if he could leave his retirement when the error of Nestorius imperilled the faith, he should do as much when his own orthodoxy is in question. He has but to acknowledge and anathematize his error, and the past shall be forgiven. As regards the future, he must give assurance to us that he will only teach conformably to the doctrines of the Fathers.| The archbishop closed with significant words: |You (monks) know the zeal of the accuser of Eutyches. Fire itself seems to him cold in comparison with his burning zeal for religion. God knows I have besought him to desist; but, as he persisted, what could I do? Do you suppose that I have any wish to destroy you, and not rather gather you together? It is the act of an enemy to scatter, but the act of a father to gather.|

The fifth session opened on Wed. Nov.17, and as the result of its deliberations, Eutyches was informed that he would be expected on Nov.22, and, if he failed to appear, would be deprived of his clerical functions and monastic dignity. A sixth session met on Sat. Nov.20, and agreed that Eutyches might be accompanied on the Monday following by four friends. Eusebius said that when Mamas and Theophilus had visited Eutyches, the archimandrite used expressions not reported to the synod, but which threw great light on his opinions. At the request of the bishops, Theophilus narrated what had occurred. Eutyches, he said, had wished to argue with them, and in the presence of several of his monks had put these questions: |Where, in Holy Scripture, is there any mention of two natures? Which of the Fathers has declared that God the Word has two natures?| Mamas had replied that the argument from silence was insufficient. |The word homoousios does not occur in Holy Scripture; we owe it to the definitions of the Fathers. And similarly we owe to them the affirmation of the two natures.| Theophilus had then asked if Eutyches believed that God the Word was |perfect (teleios) in Christ,| and |Do you believe that the man made flesh was also perfect (in Him)?| He answered |Yes| to both questions, whereupon Theophilus urged, |If in Christ be perfect God and perfect man, then do these perfect (natures) form the one Son. Why will you not allow that the one Son consists of two natures?| Eutyches replied: |God forbid that I should say that Christ consists of two natures, or dispute about the nature of God. Let the synod depose me, or do what they please. I will hold fast by the faith which I have received.| Mamas substantiated the truth of this report, adding that what led to the discussion was a remark of Eutyches: |God the Word became flesh to restore fallen human nature,| and the question which he (Mamas) had put: |By what nature, then, is this human nature taken up and restored?| Flavian naturally asked why this conversation had not been reported before: it was a lame but thoroughly Oriental answer to reply: |Because we had been sent, not to question Eutyches about his faith, but to summon him to the synod. We gave you his answer to the latter point. No one asked us about the former, and therefore we held our peace.|

The seventh, last, and weightiest session met on Mon. Nov.22. Eutyches at last presented himself, accompanied by a multitude of soldiers, monks, and others, who refused to allow him to enter till assured that he should depart as free as he entered. A letter from the emperor (Theodosius II.) was presented. |I wish,| it said, |for the peace of the church, and steadfast adherence to the orthodox doctrines of the Fathers at Nicaea and Ephesus. And because I know that Florentius the patrician is a man approved in the faith, I desire that he should be present at the sessions of a synod which has to deal with matters of faith.| The synod received the letter with shouts, |Long live the emperor! His faith is great! Long live our pious, orthodox, high-priest and emperor (to archierei basilei).| Florentius was conducted to his seat, the accuser (Eusebius) and the accused (Eutyches) took their places, and the session began by the recital of all the papers bearing on the point at issue. Cyril's letter to John of Antioch was again read, in which occurred the following: |We confess our Lord Jesus Christ . . .
consubstantial with the Father, according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; for a union of the two natures was made; wherefore we confess one Christ, one Son, one Lord. And in accordance with the perception of the unconfused union (ten tes asunchutou henoseos ennoian), we confess the Holy Virgin theotokos, because God the Word was made flesh, and became man and united to Himself by conception the temple taken from her.| Eusebius exclaimed, |Certainly Eutyches does not acknowledge this; he has never believed it, but taught the very opposite to every one who came to him.| Florentius desired that Eutyches should be asked if he assented to these documents or not. Eutyches was interrogated; and when the archbishop put the plain question: |Do you confess that Christ is of two natures?| Eutyches answered, |I have never yet presumed to dispute about the nature of my God; that He is consubstantial with us have I never said. I readily admit that the Holy Virgin is consubstantial with us, and that our God was born of her flesh.| Flavian, Florentius, Basil of Seleucia, and others, pressed upon him |If you admit that Mary is consubstantial with us, and that Christ took His manhood from her, it naturally follows that He, according to His manhood, is consubstantial with us.| Eutyches answered: |I do not say that the body of man has become the body of God; but in speaking of a human body of God I say that the Lord became flesh of the Virgin. If you wish me to add that His body is consubstantial with ours, I will do so; but I cannot use the word
consubstantial in such a manner as to deny that He is the Son of God.| Flavian's retort was just: |You will then admit this from compulsion, and not because it is your belief.| Finally, the synod desired Eutyches to make a full explanation, and to pronounce an anathema on opinions opposed to the documents which had been recited. Eutyches replied that he would, if the synod desired it, make use of language (viz. consubstantial with us, and of two natures) which, in his opinion, was very much open to question; |but,| he added, |inasmuch as I do not find such language either in Holy Scripture or in the writings of the Fathers, I must decline to pronounce an anathema on those who do not accept it, lest -- in so doing -- I should be anathematizing the Fathers.| Florentius asked: |Do you acknowledge two natures in Christ, and His consubstantiality with us?| |Cyril and Athanasius,| answered Eutyches, |speak of two natures before the union, but of one nature after the union.| |If you do not acknowledge two natures after the union,| said Florentius, |you will be condemned. Whosoever refuses the formula 'of two natures' and the expression 'two natures' is unorthodox; |to which the synod responded with the cry, |And to receive this under compulsion (as would Eutyches) is not to believe in it. Long live the emperor!| The sentence was pronounced: |Eutyches, formerly priest and archimandrite, hath proved himself affected by the heresy of Valentinus and Apollinaris, and hath refused -- in spite of our admonition -- to accept the true faith. Therefore we, lamenting his perverseness, have decreed, through our Lord Jesus Christ, blasphemed by him, that he be excluded from all priestly functions, from our communion, and from his primacy in his monastery.| Excommunication was pronounced upon all who should consort with and abet him, and the sentence was signed by 32 (? 28) bishops, and 23 archimandrites. Eutyches left the council-chamber muttering an appeal to Rome.

The monks rallied round Eutyches, and the influence of the minister Chrysaphius, his godson, was exerted in his behalf. Eutyches himself wrote to the emperor and to many of the bishops, and placarded notices about Constantinople, protesting against his sentence and justifying his teaching. Of his letters the most important is to pope Leo. In it he accuses Eusebius of acting at Satan's bidding, not in the interests of orthodoxy, but with the intention of destroying him. He repeats that he could not accede to the demands of the synod, acknowledge two natures in Christ, and anathematize all who opposed this doctrine, because Athanasius, Gregory, Julius, and Felix had rejected the expression |two natures,| he himself having no wish to add to the creed of Nicaea and Ephesus, nor to define too particularly the nature of God the Word. He adds that he had desired the synod to lay the matter before the pope, promising to abide by his decision; but this not having been granted, he, being in great danger, now implored the pope to give an unprejudiced judgment, and to protect him.

Flavian, on his part, circulated the decree of excommunication. He charged the monks to obey it, and communicated it to the emperor, the pope, and provincial bishops. His interviews with the emperor were marked by great suspicion on the part of the latter; and his letter to Leo was forestalled by that of Eutyches and a second was required before the pope was satisfied. Leo eventually gave Eutyches his answer in the celebrated Epistola Dogmatica ad Flavianum.

Court favour inclined to Eutyches; and early in 449 the emperor appointed a commission to examine a charge of falsification of the acts of the late synod of Constantinople, proffered by Eutyches against Flavian. No such falsification was proved, and the commission had no choice but to confirm the sentence pronounced by the synod; but an agitation was thereby advanced, which was productive of the greatest misery.

A council had already been summoned by the emperor to meet at Ephesus. Eutyches and Dioscorus, patriarch of Alexandria, had demanded it, and their position had been supported by Chrysaphius. The imperial summons was in the names of Theodosius II. and Valentinian III., and was dated May 30, 449. It stated the cause of the summons to be the doubts and disputes which had arisen concerning the faith; it invited Dioscorus to present himself with ten metropolitans and ten bishops at Ephesus on Aug.1; and it extended the invitation to other bishops, Theodoret of Cyrus (Kars) being exempted unless specially summoned by the council.

The synod -- the |Latrocinium,| or |Robber Synod,| as posterity was taught to call it by Leo -- first met on Aug.8, 449. |Flavian was presented as an oppressor and Eutyches as a victim, and terrible was the day on which it opened. The true faith received in the East a shock from which it has never completely recovered since. The church witnessed the separation from herself of nations which have never returned to her, and perhaps never will| (Martin). Leo was not present except by his legates, who brought the famous tome, or doctrinal letter, to Flavian, and letters to the emperor, the archimandrites, the council, and others. In his letter to Theodosius (June 13, 449) Leo expresses his regret that |the foolish old man| (Eutyches) had not given up opinions condemned by the synod of Constantinople, and intimates his wish that the archimandrite should be received again if he would keep his promise to the pope, and amend what was erroneous in his views. In the letter to Pulcheria (same date), the pope considers Eutyches to have fallen into his error |through want of knowledge rather than through wickedness|; to the archimandrites of Constantinople he states his conviction that they do not share the views of Eutyches, and exhorts them to deal tenderly with him should he renounce his error; and to the synod he quotes the confession of St. Peter, |Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God| (Matt. xvi.16) as embodying belief in the two natures, and argues that if Eutyches had rightly understood these words, he would not have swerved from the path of truth. In most of these Leo refers to the tome as containing the true teaching of the church.

A synod stigmatized as |a gang of robbers| was not likely to permit the recital of a document condemnatory of Eutyches, the man they were pledged to acquit. It was presented, but shelved.

For the history of the synod, in its relation to Eutyches, see Dioscorus. The Christian world was rent in pieces by its proceedings. Egypt, Thrace, and Palestine ranged themselves with Dioscorus and the emperor; Syria, Pontus, Asia, Rome, protested against the treatment of Flavian and the acquittal of Eutyches. Dioscorus excommunicated Leo, Leo Dioscorus. Theodosius applauded and confirmed the decisions of the synod in a decree which denounced Flavian, Eusebius, and others as Nestorians, forbad the elevation of their followers to episcopal rank, deposed them if already bishops, and expelled them from the country. Leo wrote to the emperor Theodosius, to the church at Constantinople, and to the anti-Eutychian archimandrites. He asked for a general council.

The wrangle was suddenly silenced by the death of Theodosius (July 450). Under Marcian orthodoxy triumphed again: |Eutychianism, as well as Nestorianism, was conquered| (Leo). Marcian assented at once and cordially to the pope's request for a council. Anatolius convened a synod of such bishops, archimandrites, priests, and deacons as were at Constantinople, and in the presence of the Roman legates subscribed the tome, and, together with the whole assembly, anathematized Eutyches, Nestorius, and their followers. Leo's wish for a council was not now so urgent. The danger had passed away. Eutychianism and Nestorianism had been anathematized; his own tome had been everywhere accepted; of more immediate importance, in his opinion, was the practical question, how best and most speedily to reconcile the penitent and to punish the obstinate. The war in the West, the invasion of Gaul by Attila, would prevent the bishops of the West from attending a council in Italy, where he wished it to be. Nestorianism was still powerful among the bishops of Syria, and would unquestionably bias the views of many, should a council be called in the East, as the emperor desired. He feared that the men who would unite for the condemnation of Eutychianism would find means for a triumph of Nestorianism over orthodoxy. But, in deference to the emperor's convictions, he consented to send representatives to the future council, while he urged that no fresh discussion should be allowed whether Eutyches was heretical or not, or whether Dioscorus had judged rightly or not, but that debate should turn upon the best means of reconciling and dealing mercifully with those who had gone wrong. For a similar reason he urged the emperor's wife, Pulcheria, to cause the removal of Eutyches from the neighbourhood of Constantinople, and to place an orthodox abbat at the head of his monastery.

The fourth great council of the church met at Chalcedon on Oct.8, 451. For its general history see Dioscorus. During the first session the secretaries read the documents descriptive of the introduction of Eutyches at the synod of Ephesus (the Latrocinium) and the reading of his paper. At words attributing to Eutyches the statement, |The third general council (that of Ephesus, 431) hath directly forbidden any addition to the Nicene Creed,| Eusebius of Dorylaeum exclaimed, |That is untrue.| |You will find it in four copies,| retorted Dioscorus. Diogenes of Cyzicus urged that Eutyches had not repeated the Nicene Creed as it then stood; for the second general council (Constantinople, 381) had certainly appended (against Apollinaris and Macedonius) to the words |He was incarnate,| the words |by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary,| though he considered this an explanation rather than an addition; but the Egyptian bishops present disclaimed (as Cyril had previously done) any such revised version of the Nicene confession and greeted the words of Diogenes with loud disapproval. Angry words were again interchanged when the reader continued: |I (Eutyches) anathematize all who say that the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ came down from heaven.| |True,| interrupted Eusebius, |but Eutyches has never told us whence Christ did take His manhood; |and Diogenes and Basil of Seleucia affirmed that Eutyches, though pressed upon this point at Constantinople, had refused to speak out. Dioscorus now, and to his honour, protested: |Let Eutyches be not only punished, but burnt, if he holds heterodox opinions. I only care to preserve the Catholic faith, not that of any individual man|; and then he turned upon Basil for having said one thing at Constantinople and another at Ephesus. |I did so,| pleaded Basil, |out of fear of the majority. Before a tribunal of magistrates I would have remained firm even to martyrdom; but I did not dare oppose (a tribunal of) the Fathers (or bishops).| This plea for pardon was adopted by the others. |Yes, we all sinned (at Ephesus); we all implore forgiveness.|

At the 4th session (Oct.17) 18 anti-Eutychian priests and archimandrites, headed by Faustus, were admitted. They were questioned about a petition addressed to Marcian previous to the opening of the council, by Carosus and other Eutychians, who styled themselves archimandrites. Faustus replied that only two of the petitioners (Carosus and Dorotheus) were archimandrites, the rest were men who lived in martyries or were unknown to them. The imperial commissioners commanded that Carosus and the others should be summoned. Twenty came, and then the petition was read. It was an impassioned appeal to the emperor to prevent an outbreak of schism, to summon a council, and meanwhile forbid the expulsion of any man from his church, monastery, or martyry. In a second document the Eutychians excused themselves for not having previously attended, on the ground that the emperor had forbidden it. |The emperor,| it proceeded, |had assured them that at the council the creed of Nicaea only should be established, and that nothing should be undertaken previous to this.| It urged that the condemnation of Dioscorus was inconsistent with the imperial promise; he and his bishops should therefore be again called to the council, and the present schism would be removed. If not, they declared that they would hold no communion with men who opposed the creed of the 318 Fathers at Nicaea. To prove their own orthodoxy they appended their signatures to that creed and to the Ephesian canon which confirmed it. Aetius, archdeacon of Constantinople, reminded these petitioners that church discipline required monks to accept from the bishops instructions in matters of faith. In the name of the council he demanded, |Do you assent to their decision or not?| |I abide by the creed of Nicaea,| answered Carosus; |condemn me and send me into exile. . . . If Eutyches doth not believe what the Catholic church believes, let him be anathema.| The appeal of Faustus and other anti-Eutychian archimandrites to the emperor was now ordered to be read. The Eutychian archimandrite Dorotheus immediately asserted the orthodoxy of Eutyches. The commissioners retorted, |Eutyches teaches that the body of the Redeemer is not |of like substance to ours. What say you to that?| Dorotheus avoided a direct answer by quoting the language of the Constantinopolitan creed in this form, |Incarnate of the Virgin and made man,| and interpreting it in an anti-Nestorian sense; but he declined to attest the language used on this point by Leo of in his tome. The commissioners were now on the point of passing judgment, when the Eutychians asserted that the emperor had promised them an opportunity of fair debate with their opponents in his presence. It was necessary to ascertain the truth of this, and the sitting of Oct.17 ended. On Oct.20 the council met again. Alexander, the priest and periodeutes (|visitor,| see Suicer, Theosaur. i. n.), who had been deputed to see the emperor informed the council that he and the decurion John had been sent by the emperor to the monks, with a message to the effect that had he (the emperor) considered himself able to decide the point in dispute, he would not have convened a council. |I now charge you,| continued the emperor, |to attend the council and learn from them what you do not yet know. For what the holy general council determines, that I follow, that I rest in, and that I believe.| The imperial language was greeted with loud acclamations. The Eutychians were granted 30 days'
consideration, after which, should they remain contumacious, they would be deprived of ecclesiastical rank and office. From Leo's correspondence (Epp.136, 141, 142) it would seem that Carosus and Dorotheus persisted in their views and were ejected by Marcian from their monastery. On Oct.22, in the 5th session, the memorable |Definition of faith agreed upon at the council of Chalcedon| was recited and received with the unanimous cry, |This is the faith of the Fathers; this is the faith of the Apostles. We all assent to it. We all think thus.| It was signed by the metropolitan and by the imperial commissioners. After declaring the sufficiency of the wise and saving creed| of Nicaea and Constantinople, inasmuch as that creed taught |completely the perfect doctrine concerning the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and fully explained the Incarnation of the Lord to those who received it faithfully,| it goes on to admit that some |dare to corrupt the mystery of the Lord's Incarnation, others (i.e. the Eutychians) bring in a confusion and mixture (sunchusin kai krasin), and absurdly imagine the nature of the flesh and of the Godhead to be one, and teach the monstrous doctrine that the Divine nature of the Only-begotten was a commixture capable of suffering . . . Therefore the present holy, great, and oecumenical council . . . has added for the confirmation of the orthodox doctrines, the letter of Leo written to Flavian for the removal of the evil opinions (kakonoia) of Eutyches. For it is directed against those who attempt to rend the mystery of the Incarnation into a duad of Sons; it repels from the sacred congregation those who dare to say that the Divinity of the Only-begotten is capable of suffering; it is opposed to those who imagine a mixture or confusion of the two natures of Christ; it drives away those who fancy that the form of a servant which was taken by Him of us is of an heavenly or any other substance; and it condemns those who speak of two natures of the Lord before the union, and feign one after the union. . . . We then,| was the conclusion, |following the holy Fathers, all with one consent teach men to confess one and the same Son, one Lord Jesus Christ; the same perfect in Godhead and also perfect in manhood; truly God and truly man, of a reasonable soul and body; consubstantial with the Father according to the Godhead, and consubstantial with us according to the manhood; in all things like unto us without sin; begotten before all ages of the Father according to the Godhead, and in these latter days, for us and for our salvation, born of Mary, the Virgin Mother of God, according to the Manhood; one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, Only-begotten, to be acknowledged in two natures, inconfusedly, unchangeably, indivisibly, inseparably (en duo phusesin asunchutos, atreptos, adiairetos, achoristos gnorizomenon), the distinction of natures being by no means taken away by the union, but rather the property of each nature being preserved, and concurring in one person and one hypostasis, not parted or divided into two persons, but one and the same Son and Only-begotten, God the Word, the Lord Jesus Christ, as the prophets from the beginning have declared concerning Him, and the Lord Jesus Christ Himself has taught us, and the creed of the holy Fathers has delivered to us.| |Writing, composing, devising, or teaching any other creed| was declared unlawful, with penalties: |bishops and clergy were to be deposed, monks and laymen anathematized.|

On Oct.25 Marcian, accompanied by Pulcheria and the court, opened and closed the sixth session. In his address he explained that he appeared in person, as Constantine had done before him, not to overawe and coerce any, but to strengthen and confirm the faith: his efforts and prayers were alike directed to one end, that all might be one in true doctrine, hold the same religion, and honour the true Catholic faith. The archdeacon Aetius recited in his presence the confession of faith approved at the previous session, and when the emperor asked if it expressed the opinion of all, shouts arose from all sides, |This is the belief of us all! We are unanimous, and have signed it unanimously! We are all orthodox! This is the belief of the Fathers; this is the belief of the Apostles; this is the belief of the orthodox; this belief hath saved the world! Long live Marcian, the new Constantine, the new Paul, the new David! Long live Pulcheria, the new Helena!|

Imperial edicts speedily followed the close of the council (Nov.1). One, dated Mar.13, 452, was especially directed against the Eutychians. They had persisted in disseminating their |foolishness| in spite of the council and the emperor. Marcian warned them that their contumacy would be sharply punished; and on July 28, Eutychians and Apollinarians were deprived of their priests and forbidden to hold meetings or live together in monasteries; they were to be considered incapable of inheriting property under a will or devising property to their co-sympathizers; and were to be reckoned unfit for military service. Eutychian priests who had seceded from their post in the church and the monks from Eutyches's own monastery were banished from Roman territory. Their writings were to be burnt, and the composer and circulator of such works was to be punished with confiscation of goods and with exile. Dioscorus and Eutyches were exiled, but the latter died probably before the sentence was carried into effect.

|With none of those who have been the authors of heresies among Christians was blasphemy the first intention; nor did they fall from the truth in a desire to dishonour the Deity, but rather from an idea which each entertained, that he should improve upon his predecessors by upholding such and such doctrines.| These words of the church historian Evagrius (i.11) follow his account of the second (i.e. the Robber) synod of Ephesus, which restored Eutyches. They express the belief of a
judicially-trained mind within little more than 100 years after the events in question, and are in substance reproduced by |judicious| Hooker (Eccl. Pol. v. c.52). Cyril |had given instance in the body and soul of man no farther than only to enforce by example against Nestorius, that a visible and invisible, a mortal and an immortal substance, may united make one person.| Eutyches and his followers took those words of Cyril |as though it had been his drift to teach, that even as in us the body and the soul, so in Christ God and man make but one nature. . . . He became unsound (in belief) by denying the difference which still continueth between the one and the other nature.| It was |real, though erring reverence| which led him, in the first instance, to broach his opinions. His |narrow mind, stiffened by seclusion, and bewildered by harassing excitement| (Bright) was in no state in the day of his trial before the synod of Constantinople to perceive to what his teaching logically conducted, nor to accept the qualifications or paraphrases kindly offered. He passed away, but Eutychianism exists still (Pusey, Councils of the Church, p.25). It never has and never will yield to edicts like those of Marcian. The right faith has been defined by the great council which opposed both it and Nestorianism. |We must keep warily a middle course, shunning both that distraction of Persons, wherein Nestorius went away, and also this latter confusion of natures, which deceived Eutyches| (Hooker). [[227]Monophysitism.]

Consult Mansi, Sacr. Conc. Collectio, vi. vii.; Tillem. Mémoires, etc. xv.; Bright, History of the Church (313-451); and other works mentioned above.

[J.M.F.]

Eutychianus, bp. of Rome
Eutychianus (3), bp. of Rome from Jan.275 to Dec.283, during a period of 8 years, 11 months and 3 days, and buried in the cemetery of Callistus. The truth of the record in the Liberian Catalogue has been confirmed by the discovery by De Rossi (Rom. Sot. ii.70), in the papal crypt of the cemetery, of fragments of a slab inscribed EUTUChIANOC EPIC (Eutychianus episcopus). Ten decreta appear as his in the collections of Gratian, Ivo, and others.

[J.B -- Y.]

Eutychius
Eutychius (18), St., patriarch of Constantinople. His biography, composed by his chaplain Eustathius, has been preserved entire. Eutychius was born at Theium in Phrygia c.512. His father Alexander was a general under Belisarius. Eutychius took the monastic habit at Amasea at the age of 30, c.542.

As an archimandrite at Constantinople he stood high in favour with the patriarch Mennas, at whose death in 552 he was nominated by Justinian to the vacant chair.

At the beginning of 553 Eutychius wrote to pope Vigilius, making his profession of the Catholic faith, declaring his acceptance of the four councils and the letters of St. Leo, and requesting Vigilius to preside over the council that was to be held on the question of the Three Chapters. Vigilius refused, and Eutychius shared the first place in the assembly with the patriarchs Apollinarius of Alexandria and Domninus of Antioch. At the second session the pope excused himself again, on the ground of ill-health. The subscription of Eutychius to the Acts of this synod, which sat from May 5 to June 2, 553, is a summary of the decrees against the Three Chapters.

Eutychius came into violent collision with Justinian in 564, when the emperor adopted the tenets of the Aphthartodocetae. Eutychius, in a long address, demonstrated the incompatibility of that theory with Scripture; but Justinian insisted on his subscribing to it, and finding him uncompromising, ordered his arrest. On Jan.22, 565, Eutychius was at the holy table celebrating the feast-day of St. Timotheus in the church adjoining the Hormisdas palace (cf. du Cange, Cpolis. Chr. lib. ii. p.96, lib. iv. p.93, ed.1729), when soldiers broke into the patriarchal residence, entered the church, and carried the patriarch away, first to a monastery called Choracudis, and the next day to that of St. Osias near Chalcedon. The 8th day after this outrage Justinian called an assembly of princes and prelates, to which he summoned Eutychius. The charges against him were trifling and absurd: that he used ointments, ate delicate meats, and prayed long. Cited thrice, Eutychius replied that he would only come if he were to be judged canonically, in his own dignity, and in command of his clergy. Condemned by default, he was sent to an island in the Propontis named Principus, and afterwards to his old monastery at Amasea, where he spent 12 years and 5 months. On the death of Joannes Scholasticus, whom Justinian had put in the patriarchal chair, the people of Constantinople loudly demanded the return of Eutychius. Justin II. had succeeded Justinian, and had associated with himself the young Tiberius. The emperors immediately sent an honourable deputation to Amasea to bring back Eutychius, who returned with great joy to Constantinople in Oct.577. An immense concourse met him, shouting aloud, |Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord,| and |Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace.| In questionable imitation of our Lord he entered on an ass's colt, over garments spread on the ground, the crowd carrying palms, dancing, and singing. The whole city was illuminated, public banquets were held, new buildings inaugurated. Next day he was met by the two emperors with conspicuous honour at the church of the Virgin in Blachernae. He then proceeded to the great church, which was filled from end to end, mounted the pulpit, and blessed the multitude. He was six hours distributing the communion, as all wished to receive from his own hands.

Towards the end of his life Eutychius maintained that after the resurrection the body will be more subtle than air, and no longer palpable. Gregory the Great, then residing at Constantinople as delegate of the Roman church, felt himself bound to oppose this opinion. The emperor Tiberius talked to the disputants separately, and tried to reconcile them; but the breach was persistent. Eutychius breathed his last quietly on Sunday after Easter Day, Apr.5, 582, aged 70 years. Some of his friends told Gregory that, a few minutes before his end, he touched the skin of his hand, saying, |I confess that in this flesh we shall rise again| (Paul. Diac. Vit. Greg. Mag. lib. i. capp.9, 27-30; Vit. Greg. ex ejus Script. lib. i. cap.5, §§ 6-8; Greg. Mag. Moral. xiv. §§ 72-74).

The chronology of his life here followed is that fixed by Henschen in his introductory argument to the Life by Eustathius (Boll. Acta SS.6 Ap. i.550). His literary remains are his letter to pope Vigilius already mentioned, printed in Greek and Latin by Mansi (ix.186), and by Migne (Patr. Lat. lxix.63; Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.2401), and some fragments of a Discourse on Easter and the Holy Eucharist (Migne, Patr. Gk. lxxxvi.2391). In this treatise Eutychius argues against the Quartodecimans, against the Hydroparastatae who use water instead of wine at communion (he says that the only apostolic tradition is the mixture of both), against certain schismatic Armenians who used only wine, and against some Greeks and Armenians who adored the elements as soon as they were offered and before consecration. The lost work of Eutychius was a discourse on the manner of existence of reasonable natures in space, a sort of physical theory of the future life. Patr. Gk. lxxxix. §§ 2270-2389; Bolland. AA. SS. Ap. i.548; ib. App. p. lix. in Greek; Surius, de Prob. Hist. SS. Apr. p.82 ; Evagr. iv.37; Theoph. Chronogr.193, 201, 202, 203, 210, 211, 212, 213; Cave, i.527.

[W.M.S.]

Euzoïus, Arian bp. of Antioch
Euzoïus (1), Arian bp. of Antioch, the companion and intimate friend of Arius from an early age. He was one of 11 presbyters and deacons of that church, deposed together with Arius by Alexander bp. of Alexandria, c.320 (Socr. H. E. i.6; Soz. H. E. i.15; Theod. H. E. i.4, ii.311; Athan. de Syn. p.907). He was again condemned and banished, with Arius, by the council of Nicaea, a.d.325. When Arius was recalled from banishment, and summoned to the emperor's side in 330, he was accompanied by Euzoïus, by this time a priest. Both regained the emperor's confidence by an evasive declaration of their faith and a professed acceptance of the creed of Nicaea (Socr. H. E. i.25, 26; Soz. H. E. ii.27). He accompanied Arius to Jerusalem at the great gathering of Eusebian bishops for the dedication of the church of the Anastasis, Sept.13, 335, and with him was received into communion by the council then held (Soz. l.c.; Athan. de Synod. p.891). In 361 Constantius, having banished Meletius, bp. of Antioch, summoned Euzoïus from Alexandria, and commanded the bishops of the province to consecrate him. A few months later Constantius, being seized with a fatal fever, summoned the newly appointed bishop, Euzoïus, to his bedside on Nov.3, 361, and received from him the sacrament of baptism. Whether this was at Antioch or Mopsucrene in Cilicia is uncertain (Athan. ib.907; Philost. H. E. vi.5). On the accession of Valens, Euzoïus was urged by Eudoxius to convene a synod of bishops at Antioch to take off Aetius's sentence, and this he ultimately did, c.364 (ib. vii.5). On the death of Athanasius in 373, Euzoïus was, at his own petition, dispatched by Valens, with Magnus the imperial treasurer and troops, to instal the imperial nominee, the Arian Lucius of Samosata, instead of Peter the duly elected and enthroned bishop. This commission was carried out with shameless brutality and persecution of the orthodox (Socr. H. E. iv.21; Theod. iv.21, 22). Euzoïus's death is placed by Socrates in 376 at Constantinople (H. E. iv.35). Le Quien, Or. Chr. ii.713; Baron. Ann. ad ann.325, lxxix.; 335, xlix.

[E.V.]

Evagrius, bp. of Antioch
Evagrius (5), known as Evagrius of Antioch, was consecrated bishop over one of the parties in Antioch in 388 or 389, and must have lived until at least 392. Socr. H. E. v.15; Soz. H. E. vii.15; Theod. H. E. v.23; Hieron. de Vir. Ill. cap.25; Ambrose, Ep. lvi.

Evagrius belonged to the Eustathian division of the orthodox church at Antioch, of which he became a presbyter. After the schism at Antioch caused by Lucifer's consecration of Paulinus, Evagrius left Antioch, and accompanied Eusebius of Vercelli to Italy in 363 or 364. Here he zealously co-operated with Eusebius in restoring peace to the churches distracted by the results of the council of Ariminum, and re-establishing orthodoxy on the terms laid down by the synod of Alexandria in 362. He also afforded pope Damasus important aid against Ursicius and his faction, a.d.367. At Milan he resolutely withstood the Arian bp. Auxentius. After nine or ten years he returned to the East, with Jerome, with the view of healing the schism that still divided the church of Antioch. He called at Caesarea to visit Basil in the autumn of 373, and found him suffering from ague. He was commissioned by the Western bishops to return to Basil the letters he had sent them, probably relating to the Meletian schism, as unsatisfactory, and to convey terms dictated by them, which he was to embody in a fresh letter to be sent into the West by some duly authorized commissioners. Only thus would the Western prelates feel warranted in interfering in the Eastern church, and making a personal visit (Basil, Ep.138 ). On his return to Antioch, Evagrius wrote in harsh terms to Basil, accusing him of a love of controversy and of being unduly swayed by personal partialities. If he really desired peace, let him come himself to Antioch and endeavour to re-unite the Catholics, or at least write to them and use his influence with Meletius to put an end to the dissensions. Basil's reply is a model of courteous sarcasm. If Evagrius was so great a lover of peace, why had he not fulfilled his promise of communicating with Dorotheus, the head of the Meletian party? It would be far better for Evagrius to depute some one from Antioch, who would know the parties to be approached and the form the letters should take (ib.156 ). On the death of Paulinus, a.d.388, Evagrius manifested the hollowness of his professed desire for peace by becoming himself the instrument of prolonging the schism. He was ordained by the dying bp. Paulinus, in his sick-chamber, without the presence or consent of any assisting bishops, in direct violation of the canons. Flavian had been consecrated by the other party on the death of Meletius, a.d.381. Thus the hope of healing the schism was again frustrated (Socr. H. E. v.15; Theod. H. E. v.23). A council was summoned at Capua, a.d.390, to determine whether Flavian or Evagrius was lawful bp. of Antioch, but found the question too knotty, and relegated the decision to Theophilus of Alexandria and the Egyptian bishops. The death of Evagrius deprived Flavian of his rival. This was not before 392, in which year Jerome speaks of him as still alive (de Vir. Ill. c.125). Jerome praises treatises on various subjects which he heard Evagrius read while still a presbyter, but which he had not yet published. He translated into Latin the Life of St. Anthony by St. Athanasius (Migne, Patr. Gk. xxvi.835-976). Its genuineness has been much disputed, but the balance of critical judgment seems in its favour.

[J.C.G. AND E.V.]

Evagrius Ponticus, anchoret and writer
Evagrius (12) Ponticus, anchoret and writer, born at Ibora in Pontus Galaticus, according to Tillemont, in 345. He was ordained reader by Basil, and deacon by Gregory Nyssen, who took him to the council of Constantinople, a.d.381, teste his pupil Palladius (Hist. Lausiac. c.86, p.1010). Gregory Nyssen thought so highly of Evagrius as a theologian and dialectician that he left him behind in Constantinople to aid the newly appointed bishop, Nectarius (who, before his consecration, was a layman destitute of theological training) in dealing with heretics. The imperial city proved a dangerous home for the young deacon. The wife of an ex-prefect conceived a guilty passion for him, which he returned. The husband's jealousy was awakened, and Evagrius only escaped assassination by a timely flight, being warned of his peril by a dream (Soz. H. E. vi.30). Jerusalem was the place of his retreat. Here he was hospitably received by Melania the elder, by whom he was nursed during a severe attack of fever, and who, perceiving the weakness of his disposition, led him to embrace an ascetic life as the only safeguard against the temptations of the flesh. Evagrius went to Egypt, where, after two years spent in great austerities in the Nitrian desert, he plunged still deeper into the solitude, and practised severer mortifications in the cells of Scetis. Here the two Macarii were his instructors and models in the ascetic life. After enduring many terrible temptations, recorded by Palladius, and having obtained mastery over his bodily passions, he became qualified to instruct others in asceticism. Palladius became his companion and disciple in 391. Among his other disciples were Rufinus, and Heraclides of Cyprus, afterwards bp. of Ephesus (ib. viii.6). Palladius gives several anecdotes illustrative of the height of ascetic virtue attained by Evagrius and his fellow-hermits. On one occasion he threw into the fire a packet of letters from his parents and other near friends lest their perusal should re-entangle him in worldly thoughts (Cassian, v.32; Tillem. x.376). Theophilus, the metropolitan of Alexandria, desired to make him a bishop, and Evagrius fled to resist his importunities (Socr. H. E. iv.23). Evagrius remained in the cells of Scetis until he died, worn out with austerities, in the 17th year of his recluse life, a.d.398, at the age of 54, |signis et prodigiis pollens| (Gennad. Illust. Vir. c. xi.). He was a zealous champion of the doctrines of Origen, for which he fell under the lash of Jerome, whose enmity had also been aroused by his having been the instructor of Rufinus during his sojourn in Egypt and having enjoyed the patronage of Melania. Jerome speaks in contemptuous terms of his writings (ad Ctesiph.), especially of his book peri apatheias, when combating the tenet ascribed to the Origenists that a man could raise himself to a superiority to temptation (i.e. as Jerome says, |becoming either a stone or god|) and live without sin. He also charges him with being a precursor of Pelagius (in Pelag. p.260), and including in his book de Monachis many who never were monks at all, and also Origenists who had been condemned by their bishops. The existing remains of his writings are printed by Galland, Bibl. Patr. vii.551-581, and Migne, Patr. vol.86. Socrates, Gennadius, Palladius, and Suidas, sub voc. |Macarius,| mention as by him: (1) Monachus, on |active virtue,| in 100 chapters. (2) Gnosticus. (3) Antirrheticus, a collection of passages of Scripture against the eight divisions of evil thoughts. (4) A Century of Prayers. (5) 600 Gnostic Problems. (6) A Letter to Melania. (7) A book, peri apatheias. (8) 100 Sentences for the Use of Anchorets living simply. (9) Short Sentences. (10) Stichera, in two books, one addressed to monks, and the other to a virgin dedicated to God. (11) Liber de rerum monachalium rationibus. (12) Scholion de tetragrammato Dei nomine. Oudin, i.883; Tillem. Mém. eccl. x. pp.368 ff.; Fabr. Bibl. Graec. ix.284, ed. Harles; Dupin, Hist. Eccl. iii.1; Cave, Hist. Lit. i.275; cf. O. Zickler, Evagrius Ponticus (Munich, 1893); J. Dräseke, |Zu Evag.-Pont.| in Zeitschrift für wissensch Theol.1894, xxxvii.125 ff.

[E.V.]

Evagrius
Evagrius (17), an ecclesiastical historian, who wrote six books, embracing a period of 163 years, from the council of Ephesus a.d.431 to the 12th year of the emperor Mauricius Tiberius, a.d.594. He was born at Epiphania in Coelesyria a.d.536 or 537, but accompanied his parents to Apamea for his education, and from Apamea seems to have gone to Antioch, the capital of Syria, and entered the profession of the law. He received the surname of Scholasticus, a term then applied to lawyers (Du Cange, Glossarium, s.v.), gained great favour with Gregory bp. of Antioch, and was chosen by him to assist in his judgments. He seems to have won general esteem and goodwill, for on his second marriage the city was filled with rejoicing, and great honours were paid him by the citizens. He accompanied Gregory to Constantinople, and successfully advocated his cause when he was summoned to answer there for heinous crimes. He also wrote for him a book containing |reports, epistles, decrees, orations, disputations, with sundry other matters,| which led to his appointment as quaestor by Tiberius Constantinus and by Mauritius Tiberius as master of the rolls, |where the lieutenants and magistrates with their monuments are registered | (Evagr. vi.23). This is his own account of his promotion.

His death must have occurred after 594, in which year he wrote his history at the age of 58 (iv.28). His other works have perished. The history was intended as a continuation of those of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret. He sought all sources of information at his command -- the writings of Eustathius the Syrian, Zosimus, Priscus, Joannes Rhetor, Procopius of Caesarea, Agathus, and other good authors -- and resolved to bring their scattered information together |that the famous deeds which slumbered in the dust of forgetfulness might be revived; that they might be stirred with his pen, and presented for immortal memory| (Pref. to his Hist.).

Despite his unnecessarily inflated style, he largely attained his end. He is a warm, often an enthusiastic writer, orthodox in his sentiments, and eager in his denunciations of prevailing heresies. Jortin indeed has condemned him as |in points of theological controversy an injudicious prejudiced zealot| (Remarks on Eccl. Hist. ii. p.120); but Evagrius was a lawyer, not a theologian, and we must look to him for the popular rather than the learned estimate of the theological controversies of his time. His credulous enthusiasm led him to accept too easily the legends of the saints, but in other respects he shews many of the best qualities of an historian. Not a few original documents, decrees of councils, supplications to emperors, letters of emperors and bishops, etc., are preserved in his pages, forming most important authorities for the events to which they relate. Goss (in Herzog) especially praises his defence of Constantine against the slanders of Zosimus. In his general arrangement he follows the reigns of the emperors of the East from Theodosius the Younger to Maurice; but the arrangement of details is faulty. There is often great spirit in the narrative, an excellent specimen of which is his account of the council of Chalcedon (ii.18). The work is chiefly valuable in relation to the Nestorian and Eutychian heresies, and the councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. The first ed. of the History is that of Valesius, with notes (Paris, 1673) reprinted at Camb. in Hist. Eccl. Scriptores cum notis Valesii et Reading, and repub. by the Clar. Press. The latest and best ed. is by Bidez and Parmentier (Lond.1849) in Byzantine Texts edited by J. B. Bury. See also Krumbacher's Gesch. der Byz. Lit.2nd ed. p.246. There is a fair Eng. trans. by Meredith Hanmer (Lond.1619) along with a trans. of Eusebius and Socrates, and more recent ones pub. by Bagster in 1847 and in Bohn's Lib. (Bell).

[W.M.]

Evaristus, bp. of Rome
Evaristus (called Aristus in the Liberian Catalogue), bp. of Rome at the beginning of the 2nd cent. With respect to the exact date and duration of his episcopate, as well as the names and order of succession of his predecessors [[228]Linus; Cletus; Clement], ancient accounts are greatly at variance. Eusebius (H. E. iii.34, iv.1) gives Clemens as his immediate predecessor, the third year of Trajan (101) as the date of his accession, and 9 years as the duration of his episcopate; but in his Chronicle he makes the latter 7 years (Chron. iv.1). Irenaeus, an older authority, who probably got his information when at Rome in the time of Eleutherus towards the end of the cent., also makes Clemens his predecessor, but gives no dates (adv. Haeres. iii.3, 3). The Liberian (a.d.354) and subsequent Roman Catalogues, as well as Augustin and Optatus, represent him as succeeding Anacletus, and the former authorities give a.d.96 as the commencement of his episcopate, and between 13 and 14 years as its duration. The best and probably final authority on the order and dates of the early era of Rome is Bp. Lightfoot's Apostolical Fathers, part i.

[J.B -- Y.]

Evodius, bp. of Antioch
Evodius (1), according to early tradition, first bp. of Antioch (Eus. Chron. ann. Abr.2058; H. E. iii.22). His episcopate has indirectly the older testimony of Origen, who speaks of Ignatius as the second bishop after Peter (in Luc. Hom.6, vol. iii. p.938; see also Eus. Quaest. ad Steph. ap Mai, Scr. Vet. i. p.2). This tradition has all the appearance of being historical. Ignatius early acquired such celebrity that it is not likely the name of an undistinguished person would have been placed before his, if the facts did not require this arrangement. The language used about episcopacy in the Ignatian epistles agrees with the conclusion that Ignatius was not the first at Antioch to hold the office. As time went on, the fitness of things seemed to demand that Ignatius should not be separated from the Apostles. Athanasius (Ep. de Synodis, i.607) speaks of Ignatius as coming after the Apostles without mention of any one intervening; Chrysostom makes him contemporary with the Apostles (Hom. in Ignat. vol. ii. p.593); the Apostolic Constitutions (vii.46) have recourse to the expedient adopted in the parallel case of Clement of Rome, the hypothesis of a double ordination, Evodius being said to have been ordained by Peter, Ignatius by Paul. Theodoret (Dial. I. Immutab. iv.82, Migne) and others represent Ignatius as ordained by Peter. The authorities are given at length by Zahn (Patres Apostol. ii.327).

There is reason to believe that the earliest tradition did not include an ordination even of Evodius by Peter; for the chronicle of Eusebius places the departure of Peter from Antioch three years, or, according to St. Jerome's version, two years before the ordination of Evodius. The chronology of the early bishops of Antioch has been investigated by Harnack (Die Zeit des Ignatius). He infers that the earliest list must have contained only names of bishops of Antioch without any note of lengths of episcopates, but still that Eusebius must have had the work of some preceding chronologer to guide him. We may well believe, as Harnack suggests, that Eusebius got his chronology of early bishops of Antioch from Africanus, to whom he acknowledges his obligation, and whose chronicle has generally been believed to be the basis of that of Eusebius. If the belief had been entertained at the beginning of the 3rd cent. that Evodius had been ordained by Peter, it is incredible that Africanus would have assigned a date which absolutely excludes an ordination by Peter. The date assigned by the chronicle of Eusebius to the accession of Evodius appears to have no historic value, and thus, while we accept the episcopate of Evodius as an historic fact, we have no data for fixing his accession, but may safely place it considerably later than a.d.42.

[G.S.]

Eznik, Armenian doctor of the church
Eznik (Eznig, Esnig), an Armenian doctor of the church in the 5th cent. His native place was Koghb or Kolp (whence he was called the Kolpensian), and he was a disciple of the patriarch Sahak (Isaac) and Mjesrop, the praeceptor Armeniae. Besides his mother tongue he understood Persian, Greek, and Syriac. During long journeys through Syria, Mesopotamia, and Greece he added to his theological learning, becoming thoroughly acquainted with ecclesiastical literature. Later he was made a bishop, and as such took part in the synod of Artashast, a.d.450, which repelled the demands of the Persian viceroy, Mihr-Nersh, that the Armenians should adopt Zoroastrianism, in an epistle marked with dignity, courage, and faith.

He died an aged man, as bp. of Bagrewand (Pakrewand) in the province of Airerat (cf. Neumann, Geschichte der Armenischen Literatur, pp.42 seq.). His main work is The Destruction of False Doctrines, still preserved in the Armenian original (pub. by the Mechitarists of St. Lazarus in the collection of Armenian classics, Venice, 1826). There is a good German trans. by J. M. Schmid (Leipz.1900), Biblioth. der alten armen. Lit. i. The whole is divided into 4 books -- the 1st combats the Gentile doctrine of the eternity of matter, the 2nd the Zoroastrian religion, the 3rd Greek philosophy, the 4th the Gnostic sect of the Marcionites. The immediate occasion of the work was the conflict between Armenian Christianity and Parsism. The 4th book is of value for the history of heresy. The representation given of the Marcionite doctrine of Principias, and the various myths concerning the origin of the human race, its corruption by matter, the mission of Christ, His crucifixion, descent into hell, and victory over the Demiurge, contain much peculiar and characteristic, but much also belonging to the later developments, not the original forms, of Marcionitism.

[R.A.L.]

<<  Contents  >>





©2002-2021 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy