After the deposition of Eustathius (q. v.), A.D. 331, the see of Antioch was offered to Eusebius, but he de- clined tlie honor, probably in fear of tumult, and even bloodshed, from the excited state of tlie popular mind in Antioch. The conduct of Eusebius in this case greatly gratified the emperor Constantine, who wrote him a letter praising his prudence, and saying that he was worthy of being bishop, "not of the cit}' merely, but of almost the whole world" (Socrates, //. E. i, 24). In the later course of the Arian dispute, Eusebius, though theoretically orthodox, substantiall}' acted with the Arians to a great extent. Even in his Church History he avoids even mentioning the controversj'^, ending his book with A.D. 3'24. He presided at the Council of Tj're, A.D. 335 (Epiphanius, Hier. Ixviii, 7), summoned for the trial of Athanasius, and joined in the condemnation of that great man (see art. Atha- nasius, vol. i, p. 505). The prelates assembled at Je- rusalem, and deputed Eusebius to the emperor Con- stantine, to obtain his approval of their decision, and he seems to have used his influence witli the emperor to secure both the recall of Arius and the exile of Ath- anasius.
In his last years Eusebius lived in close intimacy with the emperor Constantine, who cherished the warmest esteem and aff'ection for him. In A.D. 336 Eusebius wrote his Panegijric on Constantine. The em- peror had assigned him the task of superintending the transcription of lifty copies of the Scriptures on parch- ment, for the use of the churches of Constantinople. This was tlie last literary labor in which he was en- gaged ( Vita Constant, iv, 35) before his death, which took place A.D. 340.
From the general tenor of his life as sketched above, it is not to be wondered that Eusebius has been charged with a leaning towards Arianism. " So thought, among the ancients, Hilary, .Jerome (who oth- erwise speaks favorably of Eusebius), Theodoret, and the second Council of Nicaa (A.D. 787), which unjust- ly condemned him, even expresslj', as an Arian her- etic ; and so have thought, among moderns, Baroni-
us, Petavius, Clericus, Tillemont, Gieseler ; while the Church historian Socrates, the Roman bishops Gehi'- sins and Pelagius II,Valesius, G. Bull, Cave (who en- ters into a full vindication, vol. i, p. Ill), and Samuel Lee (and most Anglicans), have defended the ortho- dox}' of Eusebius, or at least mention him with very high respect. The Galilean Church has even placed him in the catalogue of saints. Athanasius never ex- pressly charges him with apostasy from the Nicene faith to Arianism, or to semi-Arianism, but frequently says that before 325 he held with Arius, and chantced his opinion at Nicjea. This is the view of T.Iuhler also (^Athanasius d. Gi'osse, p. 333 sq.), whom Dorner {Ckristolorjj/, i, 792) inaccurately reckons among the op- ponents of the orthodoxy of Eusebius. The testimo- nies of the ancients for and against Eusebius are col- lected in Migue's edition of his works, tom. i, p. C8-98. Among recent writers. Dr. Samuel Lee lias most fully investigated the orthodoxy of pAisebius in the prelim- inary dissertation to his translation of the Theophania from the Syriac, p. xxiv-xcix. He arrives at the conclusion (p. xcviii) 'that Eusebius was no Arian, and that the same reasoning must prove that he was no semi-Arian ; that he did in no degree partake of the error of Origen, ascribed to him so positively and so groundlesslj' by Photius.' But this is merely a negative result." — Schaff, Hist, of the Christian Church, ii, 874. Compare also Dupin, Aut. Eccl. (Paris, 1G83), ii, 1-15.
It is in the field of Church history that the merits and services of Eusebius stand pre-eminent among earlj' writers. He had large acquaintance with both I Christian and pagan learning, and used it, if not with critical or philosophical skill, yet with patient industry and with literary integrity'. He was the first to col- lect the scattered annals of the first three centuries of the Church in his Ecclesiastical History, the most im- portant of all his writings, which traces the history of Christianity from the advent of the Messiah to the dc» feat of Licinius, A.D. 324. In this work he rejects, with greater care than is usually attributed to him, the doubtful facts and the fabulous narratives. And this is not his only merit. A living sj-mpathy with the for- tunes of Christianity, and earnest admiration for the heroism of its martyrs and confessors, inspires him throughout. "Others," he saj^s in the beginning of the fiftli book, "that compose historical narratives, would record nothing but victories in battle, the tro- phies of enemies, the warlike achievements of gener- als, the braverj'^ of soldiers, sullied with blood and in- numerable murders, for the sake of children, and coun- try, and property. But our narrative emliraces that conversation and conduct which is acceptable to God ■ — the wars and conflicts of a most pacific character, whose ultimate tendency is to establish the peace of the soul." In Dr. Schaff 's opinion {Ch. Hist, iii, 877), the Church History of Eusebius "gives a colorless, de- fective, incoherent, fragmentarj', j^et interesting pic- ture of the heroic j'outh of the Church, and owes its incalculable value not to the historic art of the author, but almost entireh' to his copious and mostly literal extracts from foreign, and, in some cases, now extinct sources."