EUSEBIUS of Caesarea. — Father of ecclesiastical history.
SUMMARY:
I. Life
II. Historical works
III. Apologetic works
IV. Exegetical works
V. Dogmatic works
VI. Letters.I. Life
Born ca. 265, died at Caesarea in Palestine in 339 or 340. The particular gratitude he bore toward the martyr Pamphilus, from whom he took the name Eùsèbios tou Pàpylou, led some to think that E. had been his slave; but it seems that the noble and learned Pamphilus, whom he met at Caesarea in the time of Bishop Agapius (Hist. eccl., VII, 32, 25), was rather his generous friend and teacher, as St Jerome attests (De viris illustribus, 81: PL 23, 727). E. studied under the priest-doctor Dorotheus of Antioch (Hist. eccl., VII, 32, 2-3), but it was chiefly at Caesarea, seat of the rich library founded by Origen, that he completed his scholarly formation and that Pamphilus initiated him into the Alexandrian philological method.During the Great Persecution (303-11), which he later described with moving touches, he witnessed the destruction of sacred buildings, the burning of sacred books, and savage scenes of martyrdom not only in Palestine but in Phoenicia and even as far as remote Thebaid. At Caesarea he stood by Pamphilus (cf. Fazio, Bibliotheca, cod. 118: PG 103, 396-400), imprisoned on 15 November 307, and with him collaborated on the Apologia pro Origene, interrupted by the martyr’s beheading (16 February 310), to which he later added a sixth book. Spared by the persecution (later malicious tongues questioned this singular exception: cf. the words of P. tameno at the Synod of Tyre in 335, in Epiphanius, Panarion, haeresis, 68, 8: PG 42, 197), he was elected bishop of the important metropolitan see of Caesarea between about 313 and 315, certainly before the great festival for the dedication of the church at Tyre (ca. 315-16), at which he took part with a panegyric (Hist. eccl., X, 4). At the Council of Nicaea, entrusted with delivering the official address to Constantine, according to the Vita Constantini (III, 11; Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, 18; while Theodoret, Hist. eccl., I, 7 attributes the speech to Eustathius of Antioch), he contributed his vast and sure learning to the fixing of the date of Easter, helping to secure the triumph of the Alexandrian nineteen-year cycle. With the bishops of the Council of Tyre (335), he went to Jerusalem for the solemn dedication of the basilica of the Holy Sepulchre, then came to Constantinople where he delivered the ceremonial address for Constantine’s tricennalia. At Caesarea E. continued to enrich the library, cherished legacy of the admired Origen and his great teacher Pamphilus. The scriptorium, necessary complement of the library, also received fresh impetus from E.; one need only recall that Constantine turned to E. to obtain fifty codices of Holy Scripture (cf. Vita Constantini, IV, 36-37).
The day of his deposition is recorded in the Syriac Breviary on 30 May; in the Hieronymian Martyrology on 21 June: “In Caesarea Palaestinae deposito F. Eusebii episcopi historiorum” (Martyrologium Hieronymianum, p. 328), a notice later passed into the Martyrology of Usward (cf. ed. J.-B. Du Sollier, Acta SS. Iunii, VI, Venice 1745, pp. 350-51) and into the Roman Martyrology until the revision by Baronius. His successor at Caesarea, Acacius, wrote his life (Sozomen, Hist. eccl., I, 4), which has not yet been recovered.
His attitude toward Arianism has always been much debated: an enemy of the μoυσίας, a term that to him smacked of Sabellianism, he welcomed Arius at Caesarea, defended him, extolled his doctrine, and reinstated him in his functions (323-24); the Council of Antioch (late 324) excommunicated him; at the Council of Nicaea (325) he signed, after some hesitation, the creed containing the “consubstantial” because it was suggested (more precisely sponsored) by the Emperor, as he adroitly writes in his letter of justification to his flock (Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, 8). After Nicaea E. continued to favour Arius and his party and strove to remove from their sees the defenders of “consubstantiality,” such as Asclepiades of Gaza in 326, Eustathius of Antioch in 330, but refused the see of Antioch himself, and especially Athanasius in 335 and Marcellus of Ancyra in 336. In his writings E. appears more cautious; his Trinitarian doctrine and especially his Christology are as imprecise as was that of Origen, which, in combating Sabellian modalism, fell into subordinationism. However kindly one may interpret not a few of his Christological expressions, the fact remains that together with his namesake friend, the bishop of Nicomedia, he figures among the most formidable opponents of “consubstantiality,” given also the prestige he enjoyed as a learned man in the eyes of Constantine and the episcopate of the East. This easily explains the epithet of “the great liar” applied to him (Socrates, Hist. eccl., I, 23) and the severe judgments passed on his orthodoxy by St Athanasius (cf. De decretis Nicaenae Synodi, 3: PG 25, 420), St Epiphanius (cf. Panarion, haeresis, 68, 8: ibid., 42, 197), St Jerome (cf. Epist. 133 ad Ctesiphonem, 3: CSEL 56, p. 247; Adversus Rufinum, I, 8 and 11, 15: PL 23, 421, 457), the Second Council of Nicaea (Mansi, XIII, 316-37), Photius (cf. Bibliotheca, cod. 13: PG 103, 53, cf. also cod. 127: ibid., 408) and many others.
E. was without doubt the most learned bishop of his age: he was an orator, exegete, apologist, theologian, historian, topographer and bibliophile, which is why Constantine held him in the highest esteem. Less commendable for his character and his excessively stately bearing, he appears as an indefatigable worker endowed with versatile intelligence and above all a tenacious memory. His erudition stands comparison with that of Origen, but as a thinker and writer he does not rise above the common level. E. has been remembered with admiration through the centuries for his numerous works, the fruit of careful research and deep reading, especially in the rich collections of the libraries of Caesarea and Jerusalem. To appreciate fully the Eusebian work and his method it is enough to say that without his researches we would know very little about the first centuries of Christian life. That E. had an apologetic intent in composing his works is evident; yet neither this purpose nor the various defects to be found in them are such as to obscure his scientific probity.
More than a historian in the strict sense of the word, E. was a collector of literary and archival sources, and this is his principal merit.
II. HISTORICAL WORKS
His historical writings constitute the finest part of Eusebius’s literary output; it is to these that he owes his status as the most widely known and exploited ancient ecclesiastical writer.P. Kesting, *Die Chronik des Ensebiins in syrischer Überlieferung*, in *Oriens Christians*, 3a serie, t. [1926], pp. 23-48, 223-47; 2 [1927], pp. 33-56). The versions do not faithfully reproduce the original, since the translators manipulated its content. Book I, namely the *Σχοογραφία*, contains a summary of the history of the most celebrated ancient peoples: Chaldeans, Assyrians, Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans, along with lists of rulers, based on the best ancient historians and the Bible. It often cites entire passages from its sources (notably recalled in ch. 47: PG 19, 267-68; for Babylonian history, cf. P. Dhomme, *Les sources de la Chronique d'Ensebe*, in *Revue biblique*, nouvelle série, 7 [1910], pp. 233-37) and discusses their value. Book II, the *Χρονικοί χρόνους*, contains ingenious chronological-synchronistic tables for sacred and profane history, of which one can gain an idea of the arrangement by consulting our reproductions. In the original Greek, the dates were arranged in columns and written, depending on the case, in red, red and black, or black, which is why St. Jerome urges copyists to pay attention to them (cf. letter to Vincent and Gallienus: PG 19, 313-14). This book, in the Latin version by St. Jerome, was the most well-known manual of ancient chronology in the Western Middle Ages. The apologetic intent of the work is evident: Jewish and Christian civilization, by their divine origin, stand at the summit of history.
Editions of the complete Latin text with Greek fragments: PG 19, 69-58; *Chronicon* in the version of St. Jerome, ed. by R. Helm, *Eusebii Opera*, VII, 1-2, in CB 24, 3-4, Leipzig 1913, 1926; J. K. Fotheringham, *The Bodleian Mss. of Jerome's version of the chronicle of Eusebius repudiated in collative*, with an introduction, Oxford 1965; German version of the Armenian version by J. Karst, *Eusebii Opera*, V, in CB 20, Leipzig 1911 (with critical introduction).
The author has added (often appearing as I. V) the discourse of Constantine *Ad coetum Sanctorum*, mentioned in I. IV, 32 and delivered to an assembly of clergy in 323, which some critics reject as apocryphal (cf. bibl. in Norman H. Baynes, *Constantine the Great and the Christian Church*, London 1930, pp. 50-56). This is followed by the *De laudibus Imperalis Constantini*, an oration delivered at the tricennalia. The transmission of the text is quite defective. Chaps. 1-10 constitute the discourse properly speaking, delivered in 335, of the type of the *λόγοι βασιλικοί*, while chaps. 11-18 probably contain the discourse delivered by E. for the dedication of the Holy Sepulchre (cf. *Vita Constantini*, IV, 46): E. explains to the Palestinian pagans why Constantine built a sumptuous basilica over the tomb of Christ, the only-begotten Son of God (cf. chap. 11); the concluding part has evident connections with the first books of the *Theophania*. The union of the two pieces is probably the work of E. himself.
Editions by H. de Valois, in PG 20; by J. A. Heikel, *Eusebius Werke*, I, in CB 7, Leipzig 1903. To the bibliography “pro and contra” on the *Vita Constantini*, contained in Norman H. Baynes, *op. cit.*, pp. 40-50 and in I. Daniele, *I docu- menti costantiniani della «Vita Constantini» di E. di Cesarea* (*Analecta Gregoriana*, 13), Rome 1938, may be added: H. Grégoire, *Eusèbe n'est pas l'autour de la «Vita Constantini» dans la forme actuelle de Costantin ne s'est pas converti en 312*, in *Byzantion*, 13(1936), pp. 501-83; id., *La vision de Constantin «liquide»*, ibid., 14 (1939), pp. 341-51; the refutation of I. Daniele’s study, p. 357, is overly polemical; a more balanced critique by J. Zeiller, *Revue d'hist. ecclés.*, 36 (1940), pp. 4068); J. Zeiller, *Remarques sur la vision de Constantin*, in *Byzantion*, 14 (1939), pp. 331-39; A. Alföldi, *The conversion of Constantine and pagan Rome*, Oxford 1948; J. Vogt, *Berichte über Kreuzeserscheinungen aus dem 4. Jahrhundert n. Chr.*, in *Mélanges H. Grégoire*, I, Brussels 1949, pp. 593-606.
III. Apologetic Works
As has already been said, all of Eusebius’ literary production has an apologetic character; however, some of his writings belong more strictly to apologetics, of which he has left what one might call a complete course, partly directed at pagans and partly at Jews. In these works, too, Eusebius followed his usual method of placing before the eyes of his readers carefully selected extracts from sacred and profane authors.*Generalis elementaris introductio* (*Καθόλου στοιχειώνης ελαχίμων*) in ten books, of which four complete books survive, entitled *Προφητικά έκλογα* (ed. Th. Gaistford, Oxford 1842, reproduced in PG 22, 1021-1262) and fragments of Books IV and X. The four surviving books contain a collection of messianic prophecies accompanied by commentary. Book IV is devoted to the prophet Isaiah. The work may date to around 310, and Eusebius declares that these four books should be considered a corollary to his *Chronicon* (PG 22, 1023).
*Contra Hieroclen* (PG 22, 705-868; ed. Th. Gaistford, Oxford 1852), written around 311-313, is directed against Hierocles, prefect of Bithynia, author of a *λόγος φιλαλήθης*, who revived the ancient accusations of Celsus and the more recent ones of Porphyry, adding a comparison between Jesus Christ and Apollonius of Tyana. The positive part of the work, where the historian shines, is superior to the philosophical sections, in which Eusebius struggles.
*Praeparatio evangelica*, in fifteen books, written between 315 and 320 and dedicated to his friend Theodotus of Laodicea, aims to justify Christians against the accusation of having abandoned their ancestral religion to adopt Judaism. Book IV treats of polytheistic religions; the rest of the work is particularly devoted to Greek philosophy, which Eusebius demonstrates, using chronological data (X. 14; PG 21, 838), to be posterior to the Jewish “theologians and prophets,” thereby declaring it inferior to them. He thus shows pagans that Jewish monotheism and, even more so, Christian monotheism are superior to their polytheism. The entire work is filled with extracts from other authors, making it a veritable archive for the study of ancient religions, particularly their cosmogonies. Notable, too, is the spirit of tolerance toward his pagan adversaries. It seems that Eusebius intended especially to engage with Porphyry.
Editions: PG 21; by E. H. Gifford, Oxford 1903, with English translation; H. Doergens, *Eusebius als Darsteller der phönizischen Religion*, Paderborn 1915; id., *Eusebius als Darsteller der griechischen Religion*, 1912; P. Henry, *Recherches sur la préparation évangélique d'Eusèbe et l'éd. perdue des oeuvres de Plotin publiée par Eustochius*, Paris 1935; id., *Les états du texte de Plotin*, 1913.
*Demonstratio evangelica*, in twenty books, of which only the first ten survive along with fragments of Book XV, written between 315 and 323 and dedicated to Theodotus of Laodicea, like the preceding work. Eusebius responds to the Jews—he does not write against them but for them—who directed accusations at Christians of having corrupted their own religion by adopting II. He calmly demonstrates that Judaism prepared the way for Christianity, its natural culmination, and is therefore superior to II. Book IV treats of the two natures of Christ. From Book VI onward, he treats of Christ’s earthly life, reviewing the many biblical texts that refer to II. The numerous biblical quotations contained in the work are particularly useful for reconstructing the text of the Hexapla.
Editions: PG 22; I. A. Heikel, *Eusebii Opera*, VI, in CB 23, Leipzig 1913.
*Theophania*, in 5 books, found in a Syriac version contained in a codex of 471 preserved in the British Museum (ed. H. Grossmann, *Unsebius Werke*, III, in CB 11, 2, Leipzig 1904). A popular apologetic treatise on the Incarnation, with references to the *Demonstratio evangelica*, the second part of the *De laudibus Constantini* has points of contact with the *Theophania*, which appears to have been written in the last decade of Eusebius’ life. The Greek text, fragmentary, is preserved in passages of the *Catena* on St Luke by Nicetas of Heraclea (PG 24, 609-89), some of which also allude to a second *Theophania*, which, according to Schwartz (Pauly-Wissowa, VI, 1, cols. 1431-32), would have dealt with the Second Coming of Christ.
Some apologetic writings of Eusebius are now lost: *Contra Porphyrium*, in 25 books; *Refutatio et Apologia*, of which Photius (cf. *Bibliotheca*, cod. 13: PG 103, 53) knew two recensions; these were objections raised by pagans against Christianity. Photius (op. cit., cod. 11, 12) speaks of an *Ecclesiastical Preparation* and an *Ecclesiastical Demonstration*, identified both with the *Introductio* and with the *Preparatio* and *Demonstratio*.
Particular mention should be made of the *Apologia pro Origene*, in 6 books, composed together with Pamphilus, to which Eusebius later added Book VI after the death of the glorious martyr. “The purpose,” he writes in the *Hist. eccl.* (VI, 33, 4), “of this Apology, which we two have carefully drawn up, was precisely to refute the judgments of malicious people,” in order to vindicate his slandered memory. Only the first book of this work survives in the version by Rufinus (PG 17, 541-616), together with an analysis by Photius (cf. op. cit., cod. 118: PG 103, 309-400). It is a filial homage to the great writer.
Of little importance is the discourse *In laudem Martyrum*, delivered at Antioch—preserved in a Syriac version (ed. W. Wright, in *The Journal of Sacred Literature*, 5 [1865], pp. 403-408).
A. Pietro Frutat
IV. *Esoteric Works* – The esoteric writings of Eusebius comprise commentaries, studies in biblical geography, and certain treatises of a particular nature.
Of the first category, a large part of the commentary on the *Psalms* survives (PG 23, 65-1396; G. Mercati, *Opere minori*, II [Studi e Testi, 77], Vatican City 1937, pp. 58-66; id., *Osservazioni sui proemi dei Salmi* [Studi e Testi, 142], Vatican City 1948), as well as the much more fragmentary commentary on Isaiah. Already St Jerome noted the immense bulk of the commentary on the Psalter. Vercelli (v.) made a Latin translation of it, free from any Arianizing expressions (cf. Jerome, *Epist.*, 61, 2; CSEL 54, p. 377; *Epist.*, 112, 20; ibid., 55, p. 390). No trace remains of the Latin revision, while the complete Greek text survives for Psalms 50-95, drawn from a single manuscript, and the fragmentary text, though of considerable scope—especially after the identifications by Mai and Mercati—for Psalms 96-150. For the first Psalms, however, the fragments are rather modest. In general, moreover, doubts persist regarding what comes from the Catenae as to its authenticity (cf. R. Devreesse, *Chaines exégétiques grecques*, in DBS, I, cols. 1122-24). Less prolix appears the commentary on *Isaiah* (PG 24, 89-526). As for its division into books, St Jerome contradicts himself, speaking now of 15 books (*In Isaiae prologus*: PL 24, 21) and now of 10 (*De viris ill.*, 81: ibid., 23, 727). The same writer judges this work severely, though he made extensive use of it in his own commentary. It allegorizes too much, despite having promised to keep historical and allegorical exegesis parallel (cf. Jerome, *In Isaiam liber V*, prologus, 18, 2: ibid., 24, 136, 184). This criticism, however, is explained by the particular character of the book that contains II. Elsewhere, indeed, the Stridonensian shows himself a great admirer of Eusebius not only as a historian but also as an exegete (cf. *De viris ill.*, 81: ibid., 23, 727). Of a commentary on the Gospel of Luke, unknown to Jerome, only passages drawn from the Catenae have been printed (PG 24, 329-606). The brief notes rather derive from other works of Eusebius (cf. R. Devreesse, op. cit., col. 1187; see also: I. Sickenberger, *Die Lukas-Katene des Niketas*, Leipzig 1902, p. 583).
It is undeniable that Eusebius’ commentaries show a great dependence on Origen; yet at times the positive spirit of the author emerges, who knew history well, as well as Palestinian life, and had even a smattering of Hebrew. Eusebius usually speaks of the literal sense (Πρὸς λέξιν—Καθ’ ἱστορίαν—Κατὰ τὴν πρόγραφον διάνοιαν) as something imperfect, which often must give way to a more profound sense capable of grasping the true idea of Sacred Scripture. He generally calls this higher sense διάνοια or ἄνοψις. Eusebius states that the use of one or the other exegesis is determined by individual cases (cf. *Demonstratio evangelica*, VII, 1, 113: CB 23, p. 320). Often a biblical pericope is susceptible of both exegeses (καὶ πρὸς λέξιν καὶ πρὸς διάνοιαν: ibid., V, prooemium 35: CB 23, p. 209). Very rarely does Eusebius affirm that the literal exegesis exhausts the meaning of a biblical text (cf. *Demonstratio evangelica*, VII, 1, 120 sqq.: CB 23, p. 321); while with a certain frequency he proposes spiritual interpretation as the only possible one (cf. op. cit., IV, 33: ibid., p. 181). The position of Eusebius is well delineated by the text of *Demonstratio evangelica*, IX, 1, 12 (ibid., pp. 405-406), where he states that the principal aim (ἀπόφανσις ἐκείνης στοιχείων) of biblical exegesis is to teach “mystical and divine things,” but, against exaggerated allegorism, he adds that the literal sense (καὶ τὴν πρόγραφον διάνοιαν: ibid.) must be maintained in historical narratives.
The Onomasticon. Far more useful than the various biblical commentaries is another work by Eusebius, namely the Onomasticon or "book of places" (Πρὸς τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομάτων) mentioned in Holy Scripture. It is a convenient repertory of biblical geography and topography. Given his knowledge of Palestine, Eusebius constitutes an authority of the first order on the subject, despite certain of his statements being too vague or erroneous and a certain disorder in the arrangement of the material. The work exerted considerable influence not only among Greek authors. It was immediately translated into Latin; Jerome, moreover, in 369–91 produced a new, more elegant translation, also somewhat rearranging the material. Owing to the fame of the Stridonensis, the Onomasticon was highly esteemed and used by medieval exegetes and even today remains a precious source for the historical geography of Palestine. A critical edition may be seen in P. De Lagarde, Onomastica sacra (Göttingen 1887, pp. 117–201), or in the Corpus Berolinense, 11, 1, ed. E. Klostermann (Eusebius Werke. III, Leipzig 1904).
Eusebius also published a work on the Names of the Peoples of the Bible, particularly those mentioned in Genesis, an Ancient Palestine with the Division of the Twelve Tribes, and a Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple. Of these three works only the existence is now known through the preface of the Onomasticon.
The Evangelical Canons. Among other biblical writings of Eusebius, these Canons enjoyed immense success. The author, as he explains in the dedicatory letter to Carpianus, intended to perfect a work of Ammonius of Alexandria. Eusebius divided the four Gospels into as many short pericopes, marked with progressive numbers; then he arranged these into ten tables. Passages common to all four evangelists (canon I), to three (canons II–IV), and to two of them (canons V–IX) were recognized by the corresponding numbers in the various vertical columns. Finally, in four subdivisions of canon X, he indicated the passages proper to each evangelist.
In practice, this is a synopsis of the Gospels without the text, but with all the necessary cross-references to show the relationship between the various Gospels and their particular features. A marginal reference (number of the pericope and of the canon) allows one to detect, while reading a Gospel, the various parallel passages. These canons still appear in the critical edition of Nestle (cf. 10th ed., Stuttgart 1930, pp. 28–33). In manuscripts they are often adorned with fine miniatures.
The Quaestiones et Solutiones in Evangelia (Greek title: Περὶ τῶν ἐν Εὐαγγελίοις ζητημάτων καὶ λύσεων or Περὶ διαφωνίας Εὐαγγελίων; cf. Jerome, De viris ill., 81: PL 23, 727; In Mattheum, 1, 16: ibid., 26, 24) survives only in very extensive fragments (PG 22, 879–1016). The two-book work is a kind of Consensus evangelistarum, intended to resolve certain apparent contradictions and difficulties. The preserved texts deal particularly with the period of Christ’s infancy, the Passion, and the Resurrection. Not lacking are some excellent observations and ingenious solutions.
The De solennitate paschali (PG 24, 693–705) is a short work of more liturgical and dogmatic than exegetical importance (texts concerning the Eucharist and the sacrifice of the Mass). The work was occasioned by the discussion of the paschal question at the Council of Nicaea and is dedicated to Constantine; it was composed in 332.
V. DOGMATIC WORKS. Although Eusebius played a notable part in the doctrinal controversies, he cannot be called a theologian. With vague, and at times capricious, formulas he always declared himself a zealous adherent of orthodoxy; yet no one can deny his rhetorical flair. He wrote only two polemical-theological works, which do not always shine for clarity and precision of terminology. Against Marcellus of Ancyra (v.), condemned by the Synod of Constantinople in 336, Eusebius composed a two-book work (Contra Marcellum: PG 24, 707–824; ed. E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke IV, in CB, 14, Leipzig 1966, pp. 1–58). It is a refutation of a work by the bishop of Ancyra whose title is not specified. In practice, Eusebius, with a great display of biblical quotations, combats subordinationism (v.). Undoubtedly the refutation is cogent and effective, even if modern criticism is still perplexed about the doctrinal position of Marcellus, who is the first formal adversary of the Council of Nicaea. Less clear, however, is Eusebius’s own stance, which seems to reproduce, in general terms, a subordinationism based on certain original texts. In practice, the work is more an expression of the hostility of the Eusebians (v. Nicomedia), who used the pen of the influential bishop of Caesarea against Marcellus, who had sought a calm theological debate.
Eusebius took up and completed this work with three further books entitled De ecclesiastica theologia (Greek: Περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας: PG 24, 825–1046; ed. E. Klostermann, Eusebius Werke IV, in CB 14, pp. 60–182). Its purpose is to show the legitimacy of the accusation against Marcellus, whose theological doctrine is defined as Ebionite and subordinationist (v. SABELLIANISM), since he would now deny the existence of the Word before creation and now reduce the Word to a mere “mode” of the Father (cf. De eccl. theologia, II, 1, 2: ed. cit., pp. 99, 101). The writing increasingly clarifies Sabellianism, showing its heretical character, but it sheds little light on Eusebius’s own doctrine.
VI. THE LETTERS. Of Eusebius’s vast correspondence only four letters are known. One, “to Carpianus on the Gospel Canons,” deals with biblical material; the others concern dogmatic questions. That to Placentius, bishop of Antioch, is rather a dedication than a letter (PG 24, 823–26; CB 14, p. 60). Eusebius briefly explains his polemic against Marcellus and presents the three books De ecclesiastica theologia.
Far more interesting is the letter to the Caesareans (PG 20, 1535–44), preserved by St. Athanasius in the De decretis Nicaenae synodi. In it, recalling his preeminent position at the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius explains to his flock how he was induced to subscribe to the creed when it was shown to him that the much-debated adjective merely intended to specify that the Word was not similar to created things, being similar (ὁμοιούσιος) only to the Father, from whose hypostasis and substance (ὁμοιούσιος interpreted as ἐξ τῆς οὐσίας) he derives his being. This interpretation is the clearest proof that Eusebius was a supporter of ὁμοιούσιος (v. ARIANISM) without, however, denying the divinity of Christ.
Of another letter addressed to Constantia, sister of Constantine, only extracts remain. To the illustrious personage, who had asked him about an image of the Saviour, Eusebius replied in forthright terms, declaring idolatrous the practice of carving statues and painting images of the Divinity and of the saints (PG 20, 1345–50). The writing, as was natural, was the object of lively discussion at the time of Iconoclasm (v.). It is cited in the Second Council of Nicaea (cf. Mansi, XIII, pp. 313–17). St. Nicephorus of Constantinople (v.) composed a lengthy refutation of it (cf. Antirrheticus, in J.-B. Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, I, Paris 1852, pp. 371–503).