Eusebius, a Nitrian monk (beginning of 5th cen- tury), one of the '" four tall brothers" condemned by Theophilus, bishop of .Alexandria, for defending the opinions of Origen. The three others were Dioscurus, Ammonias, and Euthymius. They retired first to Je-
EUSEBIUS
361
EUSEBIUS
rusalem and Scytbopolis, and then to Constantinople, where Chrysostom received them kindly, but did not admit them to communion. They were "pious men, thou"-h not wholl}^ exempt from a certain fanatical ascetic tendency."— Neander, Ch. Hist, ii, G91 ; Sozo- nien, Hist. Ecd. viii, 12, 13 ; Socrates, Hist. Eccl. vi, 7.
Eusebitis of Laodicea, a native of Alexandria, and therefore sometimes called Eusebius of Alexan- dria. As deacon in Alexandria, he accompanied his bishop, Dionysius, in the Valerian persecution of Chris- tians before the proconsul iEmilianus (257), and by nursing the imprisoned Christians and burying the martyrs gave a shining testimony of his undaunted faith. When (from 2G0 to 263) a terrible epidemic and civil war devastated Alexandria, Eusebius again distinguished himself by his zeal in nursing the sick, l)oth pagan and Christian, and, in union with his friend Anatolius, procured relief to thousands of in- habitants who were tlireatened with starvation. In 2G1 he attended, as the representative of bishop Dionj'-- sins, whom old age and sickness retained in Alexan- dria, the Synod of Antioch, which was to take action on the heresy of Paul of Samosata. Subsequently he became bishop of Laodicea in Sjnna, where lie died in 270. He was succeeded by his friend Anatolius. — Herzog, ReaUEnajkloj). iv, 210 ; Eusebius, Ilist. Eccl. vii, 32. (A. J. S.)
Eusebius of Nicomedia, who may be called the leader, if not the organizer, of the Arian party in the fourth century, was a distant relative of the emperor Julian, and was born about A.U. 321 (Ammianus Jlar- cellinus, Hist, xxii, 9). He was first bishop of Bery- tus, in Phoenicia, but got himself translated to Nico- media — Theodoret says (i, 19) in violation of the can- ons— by the influence of Constantia, sister of the em- peror Constantine, whose confidence he had completely won. After the excommunication of Arius bjr Alex- ander, bishop of Alexandria (A.D. 321), Eusebius took Arius (who had written him a letter asking his aid) under his protection, ottered him an asylum in his own I'ouse, and wrote urgently, though at the present time respectfully, in his favor, to Alexander, the patriarch of Alexandria (for details, see Arianism, vol. i, p. 389). As Eusebius had been a disciple of Lucian, he proba- bly held the opinions of Arius at the time. Socrates says that "Eusel)ius of Nicomedia and his partisans, with such as embraced the sentiments of Arius, de- manded by letter that the sentence of excommunica- tion which had been pronounced against him should be rescinded, and that those who had been excluded should be readmitted into the Church, as they held no unsound doctrine" {flist. Eccl. i, 6 ; see also Sozomen, i, 15).
At the Council of Nicrea (A.D. 325), Eusebius and his friends used all possible effbrts first to carrj^ their own opinions through, and then to hinder a definitive sentsnce. Their opposition was finally concentrated against the application of the term oj.ioovrsioi: (consub- stanlial) to the Son. All opposition failed, and the or- thodox doctrine was established bj' the council. See AiiiAxisM, vol. i, p. 389; Nic.ea, Council of. Euse- bius, finding himself standing nearly alone, affixed his signature at last. Philostorgius (i, 9) asserts that in- stead of the term o^Koot'crioc (of the same essence), Eu- sebius and his friends secretly introduced the semi- Arian term ojiQiovaioc, (of like essence) ; but the state- ments of Philostorgius are not to be implicitlj'- be- lieved. The decree of the council contained not only the Nicene Creed, but also an anathema of certain propositions of Arius. This last Eusebius refused to «ign, declaring to the council that lie " submitted to their determinations concerning the faith, and consent- ed to subscribe to it, even admitting the word consuh- etantiid, according to the genuine signification of it, and consequently that he held no erroneous opinion ; but that as for the condemnation of Arius, he could
not subscribe to it ; not that he had a mind to reject the points of faith which they had decided, but because he did not think tliat he, whom they accused, was in the error that they laid to bis charge : that, on the contrary, he was entirely persuaded, by the letters which he received from him, and by the conferences which be had had with him, that he was a man whose sentiments were entirely difterent from those for which he was condemned." Theognis of Nice, Theonas of Mamiorica, and Secundus of Ptolemais, agi'eed with him in this. The council condemned them as here- tics, and Constantine condemned them to banishment. But Arius, Theonas, and Secundus having submitted, Eusebius and Theognis finally signed, and were for- given b}' the emperor.
Soon after the close of the council " Eusebius show- ed a desire to revive the controversy, for which be was deprived of his see and banished into Gaul. On this occasion Constantine addressed a letter to the people of Nicomedia, censuring their exiled bishop in the strongest manner as disaffected to his government, as the principal supporter of heresy, and a man wholly regardless of truth (Theodoret, Eccl. Hist, i, 20). Bui he did not long remain under the imperial displeasure ; indeed, he subsequentl}' so completely regained Con- stantine's favor as to be selected to baptize him, not long before his death (A.D. 337). His Arian feel- ings, however, broke out again. He procured the de- privation of Eustathius (q. v.), bishop of Antioch, and, if wo may believe Theodoret (i, 21), by suborning a woman to bring against him a false accusation of the most inftimous kind. He was, perhaps, the most bit- ter opponent of Athanasius (see Atiianasius\ and exerted himself to procure the restoration of Arius to the full privileges of churchmanship, menacing Alex- ander, bishop of Constantinople, with deposition un- less he at once admitted him to the holy communion, in which be would have succeeded but for the sud- den death of Arius. In 339 Eusebius managed to pro- cure his election to the see of Constantinople, in de- fiance of a canon against translations agreed to at Ni- c;ea. He died about A.D. 312. Tliough Eusebius lies under the disadvantage of having his character hand- ed down to posterity almost entirelj' by the descrip- tion of theological enemies, yet it is difficult to imag- ine that be was in any way deserving of esteem. His signature to the Nicene Creed was a gross evasion ; nor can he be considered to have signed it merely as an article of peace, since be was ever afterwards a zeal- ous opponent of its principles. It can scarcely be doubted that he was woildl}- and amlntious. Athana- sius considers him as the teacher rather than the dis- ciple of Arius ; and afterwards, when the Arians were divided among themselves into parties, those who main- tained the perfect likeness which the substance of the Son bore to that of the father (^llomoiousians) against the Consubstantialists on the one hand, and the pure Arians or Anmnoians on the other, pleaded the author- ity of this Eusebius. The tenets of this party were sanctioned by the Council of Seleucia, A.D. 359" (Smith, Diet, of Biography, s. v.). See, besides the works already cited. Cave, //?s<. LtV. (Genev.) i, 118; Neander, C%. Hist. ii,367 sq.; Newman, ///rfor/y of the A rians ; Lardner, Works, iii, 591 ; Herzog, Real-Eacy- klaj}. iv, 242 ; Waterland, Works (Oxf. 1813), ii, 3G9 sq.