EUSEBIUS
619
EUSEBIUS
Besides continuing his worli of editing the Septuagint,
he wrote, in collaboration with Eusebius, a Defence of
Origen which was sent to the confessors in the mines —
a wonderful gift from a man whose sides had been cur-
ried with iron combs, to men with their right eyes
burned out and the sinews of their left legs cauterized.
Early in 309 Pamphilus and several of his disciples
were beheaded. Out of devotion to his memory
Eusebius called himself Eusebius Pamphili, meaning,
probably, that he wished to be regarded as the bonds-
man of liim whose name " it is not meet that I should
mention . . . without styling him my lord" (Mart.
Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 37). Mr. Gifford, m the introduc-
tion to his translation of the " Prtep. Evang.", has sug-
gested another explanation on the authority of an
ancient scholion emanating from Ca>sarea which calls
Eusebius the " son of Pamphilus ". He argues further
that Pamphilus, in order to make Eusebius his heir,
took the necessary step of adopting him.
During the persecution Eusebius visited TjTe and Egypt ami witnessed numbers of martyrdoms (H. E., VIII, vii and ix). He certainly did not shun danger, and was at one time a prisoner. When, where, or how he escaped death or any kind of mutilation, we do not know. An imlignant bishop, who had been one of his fellow-prisoners and "lost an eye for the Truth", demanded at the Council of Tyre how "he came off scathless ". To this taunt — it was hardly a question — made under circumstances of great provocation, Eusebius deigned no reply (Epiphan., Haer., Ixviii, 8; cf. St. Athanas., "Apol. c. Arian.", viii, 1). He had many enemies, yet the charge of cowardice was never seriously made — the best proof that it could not have been sustained. We may assume that, as soon as the persecution began to relax, Eusebius succeeded Pam- philus in the charge of the college and library. Per- haps he was ordained priest about this time. By 315 he was already a bishop, for he was present in that capacity at the dedication of a new basilica at Tyre, on which occasion he delivered a discourse given in full in the last book of the Church history.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, excommunicated Arius about the year 320. The Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on their side. He wrote to Alexander charging him with mis- representing the teaching of the Arians and so giving them cause " to attack and misrepresent whatever they please " (see below). A portion of this letter has been preserved in the .\cts of the second Council of Nicsea, where it was cited to prove that Eusebius was a here- tic. He also took part in a synod of Syrian bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former position, but on his side he was to obey his bishop and continually entreat peace and communion with him (Soz., H. E., I, 15). According to Duchesne (Hist, de I'Eglise, II, 132), Arius, like Origen before him, found an asylum at Ciesarea. At the opening of the Council of Nica?a Eusebius occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor, and delivered the inau- gural address which was "couched in a strain of thanks- giving to Almighty God on his, the emperor's, behalf" (Vit. Const., Ill, 11; Soz., H. E., I, 19). He evi- dently enjoyed great prestige and may not unreason- ably have expectetl to be able to steer the council through tlie via media between the Scylla and Charyb- dis of " Yes" and " No". But if he entertained such liopes they were soon disappointed. We have already spoken of the profession of faith which he brought for- wanl to vindicate his own orthodoxy, or perhaps in the hope that the council might adopt it. It was, in view of the actual state of the controversy, a colourless, or what at the present day would be called a comprehen- sive, formula, .\fter some delay Euseliius suljscribed to the uncompromising creed drawn up by the council, making no secret, in the li'tlcr which he wrote to his own Church, of the non-iuitural sense in which he ac- cepted it. Between 325 and 330 a heated controversy
took place between Euseljius and Eustathius, Bishop
of Antioch. Eustathius accusei.1 Eusebius of tamper-
ing with the faith of Nica^a; the latter retorted with
the charge of SabeUianism. In 331 Eusebius was
among the bishops who, at a synotl held in Antioch,
deposed Eustathius. He was offered and refused the
vacant see. In 334 and 335 he took part in the cam-
paign against St. Athanasius at the synods held in
Caesarea and Tyre respectively. From Tyre the as-
sembly of bishops were summoned to Jerusalem by
Constantine, to assist at the dedication of the basilica
he had erected on the site of Calvary. After the detli-
cation they restored Arius and his followers to com-
munion. From Jerusalem they were summoned to
Constantinople (336), where Marcellus was con-
demneii. The following year Constantine died.
Eusebius survived him long enough to write his Life
and two treatises against Marcellus, but by the sum-
mer of 311 he was already dead, since it was his suc-
cessor, Acacius, who assisted as Bishop of Ciesarea at a
synod held at Antioch in the summer of that year.
Writings. — We shall take Eusebius's writings in the order given in Harnack's " Altchrist. Lit.", pp. 554 sqq.
A. Historical. — (1) The lost Life of Pamphilus, often referred to by Eusebius, of which only a single frag- ment, describing Pamphilus' liberality to poor stu- dents, quoted by St. Jerome (c. Ruflfin., I, ix), sur- vives. — (2) A collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, used by the compiler of Wright's Syriac Martyrology, also lost. — (3) On the Martyrs of Palestine. There are two distinct forms of this work, both drawn up by Euse- bius. The longer is only extant in a Syriac version which was first edited and translated by Cureton in 1861. The shorter form is found in most MSS. (not, however, in the best) of the Church History, some- times at the end of the last book, generally between books VIII and IX, also in the middle of book VIII. The existence of the same work in two different forms raises a number of curious literary problems. There is, of course, the question of priority. Here, with two notable exceptions, scholars seem to be agreed in favour of the longer form. Then comes the ciuestion, why Eusebius abridged it and, finally, how the abridgment found its way into the Church History. The shorter form lacks some introductory remarks, referred to in c. xiii, which defined the scope of the book. It also breaks off when the writer is about to "record the palinode" of the persecutors. It seems proliable that part of the missing conclusion is extant in the form of an appendix to the eighth book of the Church History found in several MSS. This appendix contrasts the miserable fate of the persecutors with the good fortune of Constantine and his father. From these data Lightfoot concludes that what we now pos- sess formed " part of a larger work in which the suffer- ings of the Martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors . It must, how'ever, be remembered that the missing parts would not add much to the book. So far as the martyrs are concerned, it is evi- dently complete, and the fate of the persecutors would not take long in the telling. Still, the missing conclu- sion may explain why Eusebius curtailed his account of the Martyrs. The book, in both forms, was in- teniled for popular reading. It was therefore desir- able to keep down the price of copies. If this was to be done, and new matter (i. e. the fate of the persecu- tors) addetl, the old matter had to be somewhat cur- tailed. In 1894, in the Theologisclie Literaturzeitung (p. 464) Preuschen threw out the idea tliat the shorter form was merely a rough draft not intemled for publi- cation. Bruno Violet, in his " Die Paliistinischen Miirtyrer" (Tcxte u. Untersuch., XIV, 4, 1896) fol- lowed up this idea and pointed out that, whereas the longer form was constantly useti by the compilers of Martyrologies, Menologics, and the like, the shorter form was never used. In a review of Violet (Thcolog. Litz, 1897, p. .300), Preu-schen returns to his original
