Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Series 2, Vol. 1 (Eusebius: Church History, Life of Constantine)

We cannot venture to affirm that he did sacrifice; therefore, it is evident that he knew nothing of such an act. Moreover, he never calls Eusebius “the sacrificer,” as he does Asterius, and he would have been certain to do so had he possessed evidence warranting such an accusation (cf. Lightfoot, p. 311). Furthermore, Eusebius’ subsequent election to the episcopate of Cæsarea—where his character and conduct during the persecution must have been well known—and his appointment later in life to the important see of Antioch, forbid the assumption that he acted in a cowardly manner during the time of persecution. Finally, it is psychologically impossible that Eusebius could have written works so full of comfort for and sympathy with the suffering confessors, or spoken so openly and in such strong terms of condemnation regarding the numerous defections that occurred during the persecution, if he were conscious of his own guilt.

It is quite possible, as remarked above, that influential friends protected him without any act of compromise on his part. Or, if we suppose he was imprisoned with Potamo, it may be, as Lightfoot suggests, that the end of the persecution brought him his release, just as it did for so many others. It would seem natural to refer that imprisonment to the latter part of the persecution, when in all probability he visited Egypt, which was the home of Potamo. In any case, we must vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded charge of cowardice and apostasy. We ask, along with Cave: “If every accusation against any man at any time were to be believed, who would be guiltless?”

From his History and his Martyrs in Palestine, we learn that Eusebius was for much of the time in the very thick of the fight and was an eyewitness of numerous martyrdoms, not only in Palestine but also in Tyre and in Egypt.

The date of his visits to these latter places (Church History VIII. 7, 9) cannot be determined with exactness. They are described in connection with what appear to be the earlier events of the persecution, yet it is by no means certain that chronological order was observed in the narratives. The mutilation of prisoners—such as Potamo suffered—seems to have become common only in the year 308 and thereafter (see Mason’s Persecution of Diocletian, p. 281). Therefore, if Eusebius was imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as seems most probable, there would be reason to assign that visit to the later years of the persecution. This is further confirmed by the improbability that he would leave Cæsarea while Pamphilus was still alive, either before or after the latter’s imprisonment. Furthermore, there is his own statement in Church History VII. 32, that he had observed Meletius escaping the fury of the persecution for seven years in Palestine. It is therefore likely that Eusebius did not make his journey to Egypt—which must have occupied some time—until toward the very end of the persecution, when it raged there with exceeding fierceness during the brief outburst of the infamous Maximin.

§ 4. Eusebius’ Accession to the Bishopric of Cæsarea.

Not long after the close of the persecution, Eusebius became bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, his own home, and held the position until his death. The exact date of his accession cannot be ascertained. We cannot say that it did not take place even before the close of the persecution, but that is hardly probable; in fact, we know of no historian who places it earlier than 313. His immediate predecessor in the episcopate was Agapius, whom he mentions with praise in Church History VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a bishop named Agricolaus between Agapius and Eusebius (see, for example, Tillemont, Ecclesiastical History VII. 42), on the grounds that his name appears in one of the lists of those present at the Council of Ancyra (c. 314) as bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine (see Labbei et Cossartii Councils I. 1475). But, as Hefele shows (History of the Councils I. 220), this list is of a late date and cannot be relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in the Libellus Synodicus (Councils I. 1480), where Agricolaus is said to have been present at the Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop of Cæsarea in Cappadocia. This statement is confirmed by a Syriac list given in Cowper’s Miscellanies, p. 41. Though perhaps no great reliance is to be...