of the *Preparation*, and of the *Ecclesiastical History*; against Porphyry, the most bitter enemy of the Christians: he likewise composed six *Apologies* for Origen; three books concerning the life of the martyr Pamphilus, from whom he received his surname out of love; also most learned *Commentaries* on the one hundred and fifty Psalms.
LECTIO 3. Furthermore, as is read, having become acquainted with the passions of many holy martyrs of all provinces, and with the life of the confessors and virgins, he wrote twenty books concerning these same saints; for this reason and especially for this, because he was held in high esteem among the Gentiles, he despised the ancestral religion of the gods for the sake of the love of truth. He also wrote a history of the *Chronicles* from the first year of Abraham up to the three-hundredth year, which the divine Jerome continued. Finally, after the conversion of Constantine the Great, this Eusebius was joined to him with much benevolence for as long as he lived.
In the *Breviary* of the Church of Limoges, edited in the year 1587 by Hugues Barbou, the following collect is held for the same day in June: Almighty, everlasting God, who grant us to observe the feast of thy confessor and bishop Saint Eusebius, lead us, we beseech thee, by his prayers to the company of heavenly joys. Through our Lord Jesus Christ, etc.
In an ancient *Missal* of the same Church, edited in Paris in the year 1483, it is held thus: On the same day, the office of Saint Eusebius, bishop. *Statuit ei*, etc. *Oratio*: "Da, quæsumus." *Epistola*: "Testificor coram Deo." *Evangelium*: "Vigilate." Everything as in the common of a confessor bishop. And let the remainder be said as for one bishop.
In an ancient manuscript *Calendar* of the same Church, there is held in the month of June: XI Kalends of July. Of Saint Eusebius, archbishop.
A manuscript *Codex* of the Church of Paris, written eight hundred years ago, containing the *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius, interpreted by Rufinus, begins thus: In the name of the highest God, here begins the history of the holy Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, that is, in eleven books.
From the book *On the Luminaries of the Church*, which is found in the collected works of Bede, and among the spurious works of the divine Jerome. Eusebius of Caesarea, a key to the Scriptures and guardian of the New Testament, is proven to be greater than many in his writings. There are three outstanding things which truly bear witness to this in his works: the four *Canons* of the Gospels, which narrate and safeguard the New Testament; the ten books of the *Ecclesiastical History*; and the *Chronicon*, that is, a digest of times. And we have never found anyone who could imitate all his tracks.
From the manuscript *Miscellanies* of Theodore Metochites, from the chapter whose title is: "That all those who were educated in Egypt use a harsher manner of speaking." Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, was indeed A born in Palestine, but as he himself writes, he dwelt for a very long time in Egypt: a man most learned in every respect, as is apparent from the many books he published, yet using, as I said, a diction that is harsh and rough.
TESTIMONIES OF THE ANCIENTS AGAINST EUSEBIUS
From the book of Marcellus of Ancyra against the Arians. I happened one day upon a letter written by Narcissus, bishop of Neroniades, which he directed to a certain Chrestus, and to Euphronius and Eusebius, as though the question had been proposed to him by Bishop Hosius: whether he himself, like Eusebius of Palestine, confessed two substances. When I had read this, I observed that he himself in that writing of his confessed three substances entirely. B
From the synodical letter of the bishops of Egypt gathered in the city of Alexandria to all the bishops of the Catholic Church, which Athanasius records in his second *Apology* against the Arians. For what council of bishops, or what "assembly of truth" was there then? Were not the majority of them our enemies? Did not Eusebius, on account of the madness of Arius, rush against us, and lead others who felt the same as he did? Did he not assiduously...
write against them as those who held the opinions of Arius? Was not Eusebius, the bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, accused by our confessors of having sacrificed to idols
Epiphanius in the Heresy of the Meletians.
When the emperor heard this, he was moved to anger, and ordered a synod to be convened in the city of Tyre in Phoenicia; and he commanded Eusebius of Caesarea and certain others to preside over the trial; these were persons who were, for the most part, inclined toward the vapid discourse of the Arians. And bishops of the Catholic Church of Egypt were summoned, and some outstanding and prominent men, subjects of Athanasius, who possessed a manifest holiness of life; among whom was that great man of blessed memory, Potamon, bishop of Heraclea and a confessor. The Meletians, especially those who were accusers of Athanasius, were also present. But the blessed Potamon, burning with zeal for the truth and for the orthodox faith, a man of the greatest liberty of speech, who had never shown partiality to any person, and who had lost one of his eyes in the persecution for the confession of the truth—having observed Eusebius sitting and judging, while Athanasius stood, he was overcome with sorrow and burst into tears, as is wont to happen with those of sincere character, and in a loud voice he cried out against Eusebius: “Are B you sitting, Eusebius, and is the innocent Athanasius being judged by you? Who could endure such things? But tell me: were you not in prison with me at the time of the persecution? And I indeed lost an eye for the sake of the truth; but you show no part of your body mutilated, nor have you suffered martyrdom, but you remain alive and whole. By what means did you escape from prison, unless it be that you promised those who brought the necessity of persecution upon us that you would sacrifice, and perhaps you even did so?”
From the letter of the Catholic bishops of Egypt to the synod of Tyre, which Athanasius reports in the aforementioned Apologia.
For you know, just as we have said before, that they are our enemies; and why, not long ago, Eusebius of Caesarea took up hostilities against us.
Athanasius in the Epistle on the Decrees of the Synod of Nicaea.
And what is more surprising is that Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, although he had refused on the previous day, nevertheless signed on the following day, and sent a letter to his own Church, asserting that this C was the faith of the Church and the tradition of the Fathers; and he clearly demonstrated to everyone that they had previously erred and had contended in vain against the truth. For even if he was ashamed at that time to use those words, and defended himself to the Church just as he wished, yet in the letter in which he does not deny that the Son of God is consubstantial and exists from the substance of the Father, he openly indicates exactly what I have said. And he was certainly unhappy in this, that in trying to purge himself, he subsequently accused the Arians, because by saying that the Son of God had not existed before He was begotten, they in that manner denied that He had existed before the incarnation. D
The same in the tractate On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.*
A But what, primarily, is Acacius to answer to Eusebius his master? He who not only subscribed to the Nicene Synod, but also signified to the peoples under him, by means of a letter, that this was the true faith which had been delivered at Nicæa by common consent. For even if he excused himself in that letter in whatever manner he willed, he did not repudiate the voices of the synod. Indeed, he accused the Arians, because when they said: "The Son did not exist before He was begotten," they affirmed that He had not existed even before the birth from Mary.
*The same in the epistle to the bishops of Africa.*
Nor was Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, ignorant of this matter. For although he previously supported the Arian sect, he later subscribed to the decrees of the Nicene Council, and affirmed the same thing among his own people in his own letters, the words of which are: "We know some of the ancient and illustrious prelates and writers, who, when they spoke of the Deity of the Father and the Son, have used the term 'consubstantial.'"
*The same in the tractate On the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.*
Eusebius also, from Cæsarea in Palestine, in his letters to the bishop Euphration, was not afraid to say openly that Christ is not the true God.
*Jerome in his epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians.*
He had done this also in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, setting forth the first book of the six volumes of the defense of Origen, which (as everyone knows) was by Eusebius of Cæsarea, who was an Arian, under the name of the martyr Pamphilus.
*The same in the second book Against Rufinus.*
Immediately upon leaving the harbor, he ran his ship aground. For in referring to the *Apology for Pamphilus the martyr*, which we have proven to be by Eusebius, the prince of the Arians, etc.
*The same in the first book Against Rufinus.*
Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea, whom I mentioned above, in the sixth book of his *Apology for Origen*, objects the same thing to Methodius, bishop and martyr, which you accuse me of in my own praises; and he says: "How did Methodius dare to write against Origen now, who has said such and such things about the dogmas of Origen?" This is not the place to speak on behalf of the martyr. For not everything is to be discussed in every place. Let it suffice to have touched upon this: that this objection to a most illustrious and eloquent martyr is made by an Arian man—the very thing which you, my friend, praise in me, yet, being offended, you accuse [of me].
*Socrates, book 1 of the Ecclesiastical History, cap. 25.*
C Eusebius Pamphili writes that, immediately after the synod, the Egyptians were in a state of turmoil among themselves, without adding the cause of the turmoil. Whence it comes about that he fell under the suspicion of being double-tongued, because, while he shied away from narrating the causes, he seemed to indicate that he did not at all assent to those things which had been decreed at Nicæa.
*Theodoret in his interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes thus:*
But if not even this is sufficient to persuade them, they ought at least to believe the Palestinian Eusebius, whom they call the patron of their own dogmas.
*Antipater, bishop of Bostra, in the first book Against the Apologetic of Eusebius for Origen.*
I deny, however, that he attained to an exact knowledge of ecclesiastical dogmas. Wherefore, D we grant him fully the glory of manifold learning and erudition: but not, likewise, knowledge of dogmas. Rather, we know him to have been far behind such accuracy. And a little later: So that indeed...
lest we appear to insult the man of whom it is not our present purpose to speak, in order that, by examining the Apologetic precisely, we may demonstrate that both are heretical—both he who wrote the defense and he for whom the defense was undertaken. And with a few words interposed: For the fact that you hasten to show that certain men spoke of the subjection of the Son to the Father just as Origen did, we are not at all surprised in the first place; for this is your opinion and that of those like you. Hence, regarding this dogma we have no discussion at present, especially since it was cast out and condemned long ago by the investigation of a universal synod. A
From the Seventh Oecumenical Synod, Act Six.
For who among the faithful of the Church, and those who have received the knowledge of the true dogmas, is ignorant that Eusebius of Pamphilus, having been delivered over to a reprobate mind, became of the same belief and mind as those who follow the impiety of Arius? et cetera. B For in all his historical books he calls the Son and Word of God a creature, and a minister, and a second object of worship. If, however, some defending him say that he subscribed in the synod, let us concede that it was so. But he honored the truth with his lips, while his heart was far from it, as his books and all his letters show. Since, therefore, he was shifted and changed at different times and for different reasons, sometimes praising those who hold the views of Arius, and at other times simulating the truth, it is apparent that he was a man of double mind, as James the brother of the Lord says, unstable in all his ways. And let no one imagine that he would receive anything from the Lord. For if he had believed with his heart unto righteousness, and confessed with his mouth unto salvation the true Word, he would certainly have asked forgiveness for his writings, making a correction of them; and he would surely have made amends for his letters. But he did this in no wise. For he remained like an Ethiopian whose skin is unchanged. Finally, when interpreting *The Lord said to my Lord, you are my God* (Ps. CXVII, 20), exceeding the true sense, he says thus: "Of the nature of the *le*, the father of every son, he is indeed lord; and for this reason, he who has generated him, the only-begotten Son of God, is at once God and Lord and Father." Similarly, also in the letter directed to the holy Alexander, teacher of the great Athanasius, the beginning of which is: "With what solicitude and sickness of soul I have set out to write these letters, etc.," more openly blaspheming he says thus concerning Arius and his associates: "Your letters slander them, as if they said that the Son was made from non-existence, just as one of all things. But they produced the letter which they had made to you: in which, setting forth their own faith, they confessed these things in these very words: To wit, that God has generated the only-begotten Son before eternal times, through whom he made both all things and the ages: and that he generated him not putatively but truly, and established him by his own will, unconvertible, a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures. If therefore their letters speak the truth, they are at any rate in your possession: in which they confess the Son of God before eternal times, through whom he made the ages, to be unconvertible and incommutable and a perfect creature of God, but not as one of the creatures. Furthermore, your letter slanders them, as if they said that the Son was made as one of all things. See, therefore, lest an occasion be given to them immediately to find fault with whatever they wish." Again you objected that they said: "He who is, generated him who was not." I wonder, however, if anyone can say otherwise: for if one is he who is, certainly from him was made everything that is with him. But if he is not he alone, but the Son also was, who is, how did he who is generate him who was? For thus there would be two who are." And these things indeed Eusebius wrote to Alexander. But other letters of his to the same man exist, in which are found various blasphemies. But also writing to Euphration the bishop, he blasphemes more openly. The beginning of this letter is: "I give thanks for all things to my Lord." And a little later: "For we do not confess that the Son was at the same time with the Father, but that the Father existed before the Son. Certainly the Son of God himself, who knows all things more clearly, knowing himself to be other than the Father and lesser and inferior, teaches us this very thing quite piously, saying: *The Father who sent me is greater than I* (Joan. xiv, 28)." And after other things: "For the Son himself indeed is God, but not true God." From these writings of his, therefore, it is shown that he preaches the dogmas of Arius and his companions. And a little later: "Therefore, Eusebius also being of this faction, as has been demonstrated both from his letters and from his historical writings, rejects the image of Christ as an adherent of the Theopaschites, etc."
Photius in Epistle 144, to Constantine the Patrician.
That same Eusebius, whether the slave or the friend of Pamphilus, that he was infected with Arianism, is cried out by the books written by him.
A He confesses this sickness at last, albeit unwillingly, but by his very repentance he shows all the more that he has not repented. For he does not prove that he has departed from his former false doctrine by those things through which he thought to defend himself, nor does he agree with the holy and universal synod; but he tells tall tales that the proponents of the *homoousios* converged upon his own frame of mind and were won over to his opinion. And that this is clearly so, other things further attest, as well as the letter he wrote to his own Caesareans. But that he fostered the Arian dogmas from the beginning, and until the end of his life did not cease to cherish them, many understand, and there are many things which easily persuade one of this. That he was also afflicted besides by the disease of Origen—with which he was held captive—namely, against the general resurrection of all that is to come, to most people this is hidden; but you, nevertheless, if by searching you read through his writings, will discover him to be suffering no less from this deadly malady than from the Arian madness.
Idem Photius in Bibliotheca, cap. 13.
There were read two books of Eusebius, which are entitled *Confutation* and *Apology*. Also two others, which, although they differ from the former two in certain places, in the rest, whether you look to the words or the sense, are the same. He brings forward certain objections against our sincere religion, as if originating from the pagans, and these he solves correctly, though not in all respects. As regards his diction, he is neither delightful nor does he rejoice in brilliance. The man is indeed endowed with manifold learning, though he is less strong in prudence and firmness of spirit and the sincerity of his dogmas. For in these books also he is frequently discovered blaspheming against the Son of God, and calling Him a subordinate cause, and C Prince of the celestial militia, and other things of this kind which are peculiar to the Arian madness. It is agreed that he flourished in the times of Constantine the Great, and that he was a most ardent lover of the holy martyr Pamphilus. Whence also he is said by some to have obtained the surname of Pamphilus.
Idem Photius in capite 127.
There were read the four books of Eusebius Pamphili *On the Praises of the Emperor Constantine*. They contain his whole life from childhood, and whatsoever was done by him pertaining to ecclesiastical history, up to the end of his life, that is, to his sixty-fourth year. Eusebius in this work also is plainly like himself in his manner of speaking: except that his oration rises slightly toward brilliance, and he uses at times more elegant words. Indeed, not much of charm and grace appears in this work, just as in the rest of his books. Furthermore, in these four books he inserts very many passages translated from his own *Ecclesiastical History*. And he says that Constantine the Great was indeed baptized at Nicomedia, having put off baptism until that time, so that he might be baptized in the Jordan, as he had in his desires. But he conceals who baptized him. Moreover, he makes no open mention of the Arian heresy: D
A nor whether he clung to that opinion, nor that he has changed, nor, indeed, does he record whether Arius thought correctly or wrongly, even though there was a necessity for mentioning these things, since the Nicene synod holds a preeminent place among the events conducted by Constantine, and otherwise the very nature of the case seems to demand a most exact account of these matters. But he does record the dissension that arose between Alexander and Arius (for that is how he craftily and dissemblingly refers to the heresy). And [he relates] that the most religious prince was afflicted with the gravest sorrow on account of this tumult; and that he labored—both by letter and through Hosius, the bishop of Córdoba—to lead the dissenting parties to B peace and concord, once all contention regarding questions of this kind had been set aside. But when he could not persuade them, he gathered the synod from all sides and, once the tumult had been lulled, restored peace. Yet these things are not reported by him with sufficient accuracy and openness. For, as if suffused with shame and not wishing to expose publicly the impiety of Arius, he bypassed—with full knowledge—both the judgment of the synod pronounced against Arius and the most just punishment of those who were his partners in impiety and were exiled along with him, and finally that destruction of Arius which was inflicted from heaven and was subject to the sight of all; he did not record the history of the synod or the events that took place in it. Hence it is also that, when he wished to describe C the things that happened to the divine Eustathius, he did not even mention his name, nor whatever crimes were wickedly devised and perpetrated against him, but after saying that sedition and tumult had arisen at Antioch, he immediately adds that tranquility was restored, with the bishops assembling there by the work and effort of the emperor, by whom the whole crowd and sedition was changed into a most tranquil peace. Similarly, where he begins his narrative of those things which were dishonestly prepared against that most valiant Athanasius, he relates that Alexandria was filled with sedition and tumult again, but that it was calmed by the presence of the bishops and the help of the emperor. In the meantime, he explains in no way who stirred up the sedition, or what that sedition was, or in what manner it was calmed by the bishops. And indeed, as often as there have been mutual dissensions among bishops D concerning articles of faith or other matters of contention and discord, he maintains the same manner of dissembling in his narration.
*Joannes Zonaras in Volume III, where he relates the events of the reign of Constantine.*
Arii’s sect was at that time also embraced by Eusebius Pamphilus, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine; who is said later to have departed from the Arian opinion, and to have agreed with those who teach that the Son is coequal to the Father and of the same nature, and to have been received into communion by the holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts of the first council, it is also related that he defended the faithful heatedly. These things are thus found set forth by some (a), which he himself
(a) That is, in the works of Gelasius of Cyzicus.
in his *Ecclesiastical History* makes more ambiguous. In which books he is frequently caught agreeing with Arius. And immediately at the beginning of the book, citing David, "He spoke and they were created, He commanded and they were made" (Ps. XXXII, 9), he says that the Father and Creator is to be considered as Creator and commander, who rules by royal nod, but that the divine Word, being second to Him, executes the paternal commands. And after a few things he says that to Him, as being the power and wisdom of the Father, were entrusted the secondary parts of the kingdom and authority over all. And again, after a little, "And that there is a certain pre-cosmic essence, living and subsisting, which served the God and Father of all for the creation of things that have come to be." And Solomon also says, in the person of the Wisdom of God, "The Lord created me as the beginning of his ways," and so forth (Prov. VIII, 22). And after many other matters he says: "And above all these, as the Word of God, who was before and was made before all ages, having obtained venerable honor from God the Father, He is to be worshipped as God." These and other things show Eusebius to be of the same mind as the Arian dogmas, unless one says that this work was written by him before his conversion. B
Baronius on the year of Christ 310, chap. 38.
Certainly Socrates acts as one who whitens the Ethiopian, while he strives to excuse Eusebius himself from the Arian heresy and render him entirely immune. For Eusebius himself, although at length, in order to comply with the emperor, he had subscribed to the Nicene Council, was knowingly and willingly tainted by the same filth in a most disgraceful manner, like a sow washed in the mire, and like a dog returned to its own vomit. So that what he himself was up to the day of his death is not to be sought elsewhere than from the things done by him after the Nicene Council, recited almost every year above. But in order to excuse him from the Arian heresy, he cites the books written by him against the bishop Marcellus of Ancyra, and recites certain fragments from them by which it is demonstrated that such was the opinion of Eusebius concerning the Son of God, that he denied Him to be a creature, as one from among the rest of the creatures created by God out of nothing. But while he strives to purge Eusebius from these, he openly signifies that he has not at all penetrated the labyrinth of the heresy of Arius and the Arians. And a little later: "But Athanasius frequently rebuked the inconstancy of Eusebius Pamphili, and his return to his former errors after the Nicene Council, to whose rule of faith he had subscribed; and he shows that in the Nicene Council he had played the role of an actor upon the stage, with a Catholic guise put over him; which, having departed thence, he cast off, and, as Epiphanius says, he displayed what sort of person he was in all things." So that the same Eusebius, joined to Eusebius of Nicomedia—both having become a chariot of impiety—driven by an evil spirit with equal speed and impulse, were borne headlong to their own destruction and that of others. So that not without cause did Eusebius of Caesarea deserve to be called by Saint Jerome and others the standard-bearer of the Arian faction, its most open defender, and easily the prince among the Arians. And the second Nicene synod so deeply execrated his memory that to wish to defend him now is to be considered as nothing other than to attack the Catholic Church. Whence it should also shame Sixtus, when, against the opinions of all the ancient Fathers, he does not hesitate to assert that Eusebius himself is a Catholic; while, coldly excusing him, he transmits that what is ascribed to the error of Eusebius Pamphili is that of Eusebius of Nicomedia, just as if the opinions of these same Fathers concerning the same were ambiguous, and could be interpreted as concerning Eusebius of Nicomedia. Would that even a small space were left for excusing him! How gladly would I myself labor for the historian, to whom (as we candidly profess with great confidence) the Catholic Church owes so much, even for that part that he, with great labor, collected and faithfully transmitted to posterity very many ancient monuments of ecclesiastical matters! Thrice and four times happy would he be, had so many excellent lucubrations been published, were it not that the Arian impiety had filthily besprinkled him with so many and so great stains, and that before, at the time of the persecution, having lapsed from the faith, he had so greatly shaken it. But that out of a certain simplicity and ignorance of affairs he [the author of the Martyrology] reported him among the saints in his Catalog of Saints, and by error and a certain negligence he crept into some Martyrology, we have said at greater length in our notes to the Roman Martyrology.
ANCIENT TESTIMONIES AGAINST EUSEBIUS
Scaliger in *Elenchus Trihæresii*, chap. 27. Eusebius, than whom no ancient ecclesiastical author contributed more to the history of Christianity, left behind more errors in his writings, and of no one else do more hallucinations exist today, etc.
The same in Book VI of *De emendatione temporum*, chap. 1, near the end. The greater the diligence and judgment we desire in such great men, the more intense is the effort given so that their writings are not read by us negligently. For the learned reader will discover far more things collected by Eusebius and other ancients with greater zeal than judgment. We have examined only Eusebius, because he, as we have said, is the conclusion of all those ancients. Therefore, if you know Eusebius, you know them all.
The same Scaliger in *Animadversiones ad Chronicum Eusebianum*, p. 8, explaining those words of Jerome: "Which Eusebius, the author of this book, although he was most learned, did not so much as fail to know," etc., notes as follows: If he is to be called "most learned" who reads much, truly no one can begrudge him this praise. But if he is most learned who has combined judgment with much reading, he ought to have produced someone other than Eusebius.
Suidas under the entry *Diodorus*. A Diodorus the monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the times of Julian and Valens. He wrote various works, as Theodorus Lector relates in his *Ecclesiastical History*: these are entitled *Chronicle*, in which the error of Eusebius Pamphili concerning the dating of times is rectified.