THE NEW SCHAFF-HERZOG
of Bishop Mietius of Langres, and as discipulus et minister stood in close connection with Columban himself after being received into the monastery at Luxeuil. After Columban had been driven from Luxeuil, Eustasius aided him in his missionary activity by Lake Constance (see Columban). It is possible that Columban appointed him his successor in the restored mother cloister. At any rate Eustasius was abbot there from 614 with the sanction of King Clothair II. and had supervision over the monasteries connected with Luxeuil. According to the representation of his biographer, who knew him personally, Eustasius was a learned, eloquent, and active man. The bishops Donatus of Besancon, Aichar of Tournai, Chagnoald of Laon, Ragnachar of Basel, the abbots Amatus of Remiremont, Waldebert of Luxeuil, Agilus of Resbais, and the abbess Burgundofara of Faremoutier were his pupils; St. Salaberga was won by him for the spiritual life. He changed nothing in the order of Columban and zealously followed the penitential regulations of the latter (see Columban). He retained the Irish form of the mass, the tonsure, and daily discipline, as may be seen from the charges made against him by Agrestius {Vita Columbani, ii. 9), but as the Irish celebration of Easter disappears from the charges, it is probable that he ultimately abandoned it. Eustasius also labored for the conversion of heretical and heathen natives; he succeeded in making the Wariskians, dwelling on both sides of the middle Doubs, who followed Bonosus (q.v.), adherents of the Catholic Church. With Agilus he undertook a missionary journey to the Bavarians, but met with slight success. His anniversary is given by Jonas as Apr. 29, but in the M artyrologium Hieronymianum (ASB, Nov., ii. 38) as Apr. 2.
Otto Seebass.
Bibliography: The one source is the life by the Abbot Jonas, in book ii., chaps. 7—10, of the Vita Columbani, printed in MGH, Script, rer. Merov., iv (1902), 119-130, and in ASM, ii. 108-111, cf. pp. 302 sqq., 405 sqq. Consult: S. Riezler, Geschichte Bayerns, i. 77, Gotha, 1878; Rettberg, KD, ii. 188; Hauck, KD, i. 286 et passim; DCB, ii. 381.
EUSTATHIANS. See Messalians.
EUSTATHIUS, yu-ste'thi-xrs, OF ANTIOCH: Bishop of Antioch; d. probably c. 337 He was apparently a native of Side in Pamphylia, was bishop of Beroea about 320, and was transferred to Antioch before the first Council of NicoBa. He was one of the few decided anti-Arians in the East, and carried on a literary polemic against Eusebius of Gesarea (q.v.) which made him well hated by the unorthodox party. They succeeded in effecting his deposition in 330, and he was banished to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died and was buried. Jerome says that " he composed many works against the doctrine of the Arians"; but only one is preserved entire, De Engastrimytho contra Origenem (best edition by Jahn, TU, ii. 4, Tubingen, 1886). Fragments are preserved of a De anima mentioned by Jerome ; of another work in eight books Contra Arianos ; of treatises on Prov. viii. 22 and ix. 5; of one on Melchisedek; of two In inscriptiones psalmorum ; and of expositions of certain separate psalms. The commen-
tary on the first part of Genesis (MPG, xviii. 705- 1066) is generally considered spurious, and the " Liturgy of St. Eustathius " (ib. 697-704) is hardly more authentic. (F. Looks.)
Bibliography: The sources for a life, by no means reliable are collected in L. Allatius, Eustathii in Hexaemeron commenlarius, pp. 112-142, Lyons, 1629. Tillemont, .U7moires, vii. 21-31, 646-656; Fabricius-Harles, Bibliotheca Grceca, ix. 131-149, Hamburg, 1804; J. Fessler, Instilutiones patrologiir, i. 427-431, Innsbruck, 1890; DCB, ii. 382-383. An In Lazarum, Mariam et Martham homilia Christologica, attributed to Eustathius of Antioch, was published, Paris, 1905.
EUSTATHIUS OF SEBASTE: Bishop of Se-
baste (Sebasteia, the capital of Armenia prima, the modern Sivas); b. at Sebaste c. 300; d. after 377. He seems to have been the son of Bishop Eulalius of Sebaste. His early theological education was influenced by the teachings of Arius, but he kept aloof from the dogmatic dissensions of his time, being attracted entirely by the ascetic ideal. He became presbyter, but on account of his ascetic tendencies fell out with his own father, who excluded him from the communion of prayers (Sozomen, IV., xxiv. 9; Socrates, II., xliii. 1). Some years later he was censured by a synod at Casarea, probably for the same reason. Eusebius of Constantinople deposed him, but the number of his disciples increased. A synod at Gangra, about 340, investigated the complaints against Eustathius. His disciples were accused of denying salvation to married persons, of favoring their separation from each other, of holding objectionable meetings, of wearing unbecoming garments, of accepting payments in kind which were due to the Church, and of other misdemeanors. Eustathius himself seems to have been free from eccentricities, and his reputation apparently deterred his opponents from attacking him directly. Of the next thirteen years nothing is known except that .Eustathius became bishop of Sebaste about 356. He is heard of again after the return of Basil to his native country. Basil had also been won for the ascetic ideal, and Eustathius seemed to him the incarnation of monastic virtue. For about a decade and a half, until 372 and 373, they were united by the most intimate friendship and agreed also in doctrine. Eustathius had relinquished his Arianismlong before; being averse to all dogmatic extremes, he took the part of the Homoiousians. He was present at the Synod of Ancyra in 358 and was one of the envoys who were sent to the court. The followers of Acacius, however, brought it about that a synod in Melitene, probably in the same year, deposed him from his bishopric, not for dogmatic reasons, but on account of his conduct; there had probably been brought forward complaints like those in Gangra. Meletius of Melitene, later bishop of Antioch, at that time a partisan of Acacius, became his successor. But later Eustathius was one of the Homoiousian deputies who represented the cause of the majority of Seleucia at the court. Like the other deputies he accepted the formula of Nica^a in Constantinople, but he fearlessly expressed his own convictions in the negotiations, and when he was deposed on that account, he did not acknowledge the fact