Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 1, Vol. 1 (Augustine: Confessions, Letters)

THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS. 13

(Dogmatic Theology of the Trinity, I. c. 11 and following), Scaliger (In Elencho Trihæresii, c. 27, and De emendatione temporum, Bk. VI. c. 1), Mosheim (Ecclesiastical History, Murdock’s translation, I. p. 287 and following), Montfaucon (Prælim. in Comment. ad Psalm. c. VI.), and Tillemont (Ecclesiastical History, VII. p. 67 and following, 2nd ed.).

On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius' favor (quoted below on p. 57 and following), many of the Fathers, who were themselves orthodox, looked upon Eusebius as likewise sound on the subject of the Trinity. He has been defended in modern times against the charge of Arianism by a great many prominent scholars, including Valesius in his Life of Eusebius; Bull (Defensio Fidei Nicænæ II. 9. 20, III. 9, 11); Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 and following); Fabricius (Bibliotheca Græca, VI. p. 32 and following); Dupin (Bibliotheca Ecclesiastica, II. p. 7 and following); and most fully and carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of Eusebius’ Theophania, p. xxiv. and following. Lightfoot also defends him against the charge of heresy, as do a great many other writers whom it is not necessary to mention here.

Confronted with such diversity of opinion, both ancient and modern, what are we to conclude? It is useless to endeavor, as Lee does, to clear Eusebius of all sympathy and leaning toward Arianism. It is impossible to explain such widespread and continued condemnation of him by acknowledging only that there are many expressions in his works which are in themselves perfectly orthodox but capable of being twisted to produce a suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies; for such expressions exist in the works of multitudes of ancient writers whose orthodoxy has never been questioned. Nor can the widespread belief that he was an Arian be explained by admitting that he was for a time the personal friend of Arius, but denying that he accepted or in any way sympathized with his views (cf. Newman’s Arians, p. 262).

There are, in fact, certain fragments of epistles extant which are, to say the least, decidedly Arianistic in their modes of expression, and these must be reckoned with in forming an opinion of Eusebius' views; for there is no reason to deny, as Lee does, that they are from Eusebius’ own hand. On the other hand, to maintain—with some of the Fathers and many moderns—that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian will not do, given the facts that:
1. Contemporary and later Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy.
2. He was honored highly by the Church of subsequent centuries (except at certain periods) and was even canonized (see Lightfoot’s article, p. 348).
3. He solemnly signed the Nicene Creed, which contained an express condemnation of the distinctive doctrines of Arius.
4. At least in his later works, he is thoroughly orthodox in his expressions and is explicit in his rejection of the two main theses of the Arians: that there was a time when the Son of God was not, and that he was produced out of nothing.

It is impossible to enter here into a detailed discussion of such passages in Eusebius’ works as bear upon the subject under dispute. Lee has considered many of them at great length, and the reader may be referred to him for further information. A careful examination of them will, I believe, serve to convince the candid student that there is a distinction to be drawn between those works written before the rise of Arius, those written between that time and the Council of Nicæa, and those written after the latter. It has been very common to draw a distinction between those works written before and those written after the Council, but no one, so far as I know, has distinguished those productions of Eusebius’ pen which appeared between 318 and 325—caused by the controversy itself—from all his other writings. And yet, such a distinction seems to furnish the key to the problem.

Eusebius’ opponents have drawn their strongest arguments from the epistles which Eusebius wrote to Alexander and to Euphration; his defenders have drawn their arguments chiefly from the works which he produced subsequent to the year 325; while the exact bearing of the expressions used in his works produced before the controversy broke out has always been a matter of sharp dispute. Lee has abundantly shown his Against Marcellus, his On Ecclesiastical Theology, his Theophania (which was written after the Council of Nicæa, and not, as Lee suppresses, before it), and other later works to be thoroughly orthodox and to contain nothing which a Trinitarian might not have written. In his Ecclesiastical History, Preparation for the Gospel, Demonstration of the Gospel, and other earlier works...