Introduction
Eusebius of Caesarea is one of the controversial theologians
involved in the Trinitarian Controversy of the fourth century, preceding the
Council of Nicaea in 325. Known as the Father of Church History, he pioneered
the systematic recording of events in the Church from the time of Jesus to the
time of Constantine. Though a historian, he endeavored too in theologizing on
particular subjects relevant to his time, chiefly on the Trinitarian doctrine
and the nature of the Son in relation to the Father. His theology on the Son
earned him a niche to the so-called Eusebian School (being with the other
Eusebiuses of Emesa and of Nicomedia). Post-Nicene theologians, Athanasius
particularly, would label them as the Homoiousians (in the Latin Church) or the
Semi-Arians (in the Greek Church).[1]
They were, strictly speaking, anti-Arian though not totally adherers of the
Nicene doctrine of ousia. But even
before this labeling by the Post-Nicene theologians, and even before the technical
terms offered by the Council of Nicaea in 325, Eusebius of Caesarea[2]
had a peculiar understanding on the nature of the Son. This understanding is
reflected in his apologetic works predating the Creed of Nicaea. The Synod of
Antioch, however, had put this same concept of the nature of the Son into
question in early 325, together with the mitigating circumstances wherein
Eusebius found himself. Consequently, he was partially excommunicated by the
same Synod.
This study will seek to present the doctrines on the Son
held by Eusebius and by the Synod of Antioch in 325 that may have led to the
partial excommunication of the former by the latter. The doctrines held by the
Synod of Antioch regarding the Son will be presented vis-à-vis the doctrine
held by Eusebius during the Synod of Antioch in 325 regarding the Son. Such
presentation will aid the researcher in presenting the reason behind the
partial excommunication of Eusebius.
Life of
Eusebius
Eusebius is a Palestinian bishop who lived in a crucial
period of the Early Christian world. He was born between 260-265 AD, presumably
to a noble family.[3] He is
renown for systematizing Christian historiography, providing the model (on writing
history), normative for a very long time of new literary genre. He would also
go down to the annals of history as one who tread the thin line between Church
and Empire relationship, especially when he intervene with the policies and
activities of Constantine that affected the Church, serving as Constantine’s
theological spokesperson.[4] He was formed under the tradition of Origen,
under the tutelage of the presbyter Pamphilus.[5]
Thus, he would be greatly influenced by Origen’s theology especially in his
Pre-Nicene understanding of the Trinity. This association with Origen and
Pamphilus would encourage Eusebius to put into completion the work entitled Defense of Origen which was started by Pampilus
while in prison during the Diocletian persecution in 307 and was eventually beheaded
in 309. His master-student relationship with Pamphilus was well neat, so much
so Eusebius would go to the extent of affixing the name of his master to his. He
would also be known, thus, as Eusebius Pamphilii; Eusebius, Son of Pampilius.
Some historians would interpret this move as a legal action from the part of
Eusebius for him to become a legitimate heir to the library and school of
Pampilius.[6]
When the persecution among the Christian was relaxed,
Eusebius took over the library and school of Pampilius. In the course of his
management of the school and library, it can be presumed that he was ordained
as a priest. Eusebius would advance his ecclesiastical career culminating to
the bishopric of Caesarea. By 315, Eusebius was already a bishop, for he
attended the dedication of a new basilica at Tyre in his capacity as the bishop
of Caesarea.[7]
As a bishop, Eusebius may brandish a track record
characterized by philological, apologetic, and historical works, such as Letter
to Caprian, Onomasticon, Chronicle, Ecclesiastical History, Life of Pampilus,
The Martyrs of Palestine, Preparation of the Gospels, and the Proof of the
Gospel, Life of Constantine, Against Marcellus, and Ecclesiastical Theology.
Eusebius, indeed, personified the Alexandrian tradition, making him the
complete Christian version of Hellenistic tradition.[8]
Eusebius and
the Arian Controversy
Barely five years in his office as bishop, Eusebius would
witness the eruption of a great controversy in the Church. Little did he know
that he himself would be included in such scandal.
The Arian controversy emerged on the dispute on the divinity
of the Son. Two dominant theological traditions, currents existed in the time
of its conception (c. 320), namely the Alexandrian and the Antiochene schools.
The Alexandrian school tend to be philosophical in its approach towards
problems. It had such worldview, as it was the location of the great library of
Alexandria, which contained a lot of texts containing thoughts of ancient
philosophers. It is no surprise that Middle-Platonism or the Neo-Platonism
influenced the school. The Antiochene School tends to be biblical and
scriptural in understanding the faith. They would go further and be literal in
their understanding of the scriptures.
However, with the presence of these two schools, to say that
Arianism is a classic case of conflict between the Alexandrian and Antiochene
school is not feasible. Arius is an Alexandrian, being a follower of Origen (of
Alexandria).
Arian Controversy can be said to be a conflict which emerged
within the Alexandrian school. Origen, a foremost theologian from Alexandriaan
School, was not a systematic theologian. There were conflicting thoughts in his
writings due to his being a reactionary towards issues that arise on a specific
time. This gave rise to the Arian problem between radical Origenists and the
moderate Origenist. The radical Origenists were subordinationists, while the
moderate Origenist were those who minimize the subordinationist teachings of
Origen on the Trinity. It is in this atmosphere of an internal conflict among
the followers of Origen (of Alexandria) that the Arian controversy sprung, with
Arius as the main proponent, being a radical subordinationist.
In 318 or 319, Alexander, the bishop of Alexandria in Egypt,
and Arius had an informal discussion on the nature of Trinity. In this
discussion, Arius accused his bishop as a Sabellianist. He then put forward his
adoptionist point of view, influenced by Lucian of Antioch. Alexander of
Alexandria called for a synod in his diocese, which condemned and exiled Arius
for his false teachings. The excommunication of Arius by Alexander ushered in
the so-called Arian/Trinitarian Controversy.
Arius communicated, via letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, the
unjust treatment he had received from the synod convoked by Alexander. In this
letter, Arius would mention Eusebius of Caesarea as one of his staunch
defenders and believers and who eventually was also condemned together with
other Eastern bishops.[9]
This was because of their sympathy to Arius and his doctrines on the Trinity.
Upon receiving such letter, Eusebius of Nicomedia invited Arius to his diocese,
and went to the extent of writing letters to the bishops of Asia Minor
eliciting support for Arius. In those tumultuous times, it can be inferred that
Arius and his followers found too a refuge in the territory of Eusebius in
Caesarea, as Eusebius’ name had been explicitly mentioned by Arius in his
letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eusebius even wrote a letter to Alexander of
Alexandria accusing him of distorting the real teachings of Arius.[10]
Eusebius would participate also in a synod
of Syrian bishops, who defined 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.[11]
Truly, Arius found not only a great sanctuary in Caesarea, but also a
prodigious defender of his doctrine in the person of Eusebius, at least in the
Pre-Nicene era and from the point of view of Arius.
Eusebius associated himself to Arius not necessarily because
of the similarity of their doctrines and understanding of the Son. It is most
probable that Eusebius extended help to Arius because of their affiliation to
the same school of thought, namely the Originist tradition. Eusebius had been
educated under the tutelage of Pamphilus who was a student of Origen himself.
In the formation of Eusebius, he copied works of Origen, together with
Pampilus. Arius was also schooled in the Origenist tradition. This is evident
in the subordationist leaning of his doctrines. This is also apparent since Arianism
is a conflict within the Origenist subordationist and Origenist moderate
subordationist. Eusebius coddled a person who would go down to the history as
one of the most notorious heretics in the Christendom, out of affiliation and
not necessarily doctrinal agreement.
It is also important to note that during that time, in 320,
it was then the beginning of the so-called Arian controversy. Clear cut
doctrine on the Trinity did not exist yet, after all this very controversy
would usher in debates on the same doctrinal subject that would culminate in
the doctrinal description of the relation of the Father with the Son by various
Church councils, especially the first Council of Nicaea.[12]
Thus, when Eusebius received Arius in Caesarea, the former may have received
Arius not for doctrinal reasons. Thus, most probably, one reason why Eusebius
received Arius is their affiliation to the same school of thought. In this
case, it is their association with the Origenist tradition that linked Eusebius
and Arius. This could be the reason why the Eusebius and his diocese would be a
logical refuge for Arius and his fellow Arians.
The Synod of
Antioch in 325
In 325, barely five years since the Arian Controversy
erupted, it had spread around the known world. So much so that church officials
took all measurements at hand to contain this controversy. One of these means
is the Synod of Antioch in the early months of 325.
R.P.C. Hanson hypothesized that this synod was meant to
choose the new bishop of Antioch, a successor of Philgonius who had then
recently died. It is probable that Ossius of Cordova, on his way to Constantine
from Alexandria, joined the synod and made it a point that the Arian
Controversy be included in the list of agenda of the synod. [13]
Though Alexander of Alexandria, then the foremost advocate
of orthodoxy against the Arians, did not attend this synod, the language used
by the synod is very similar to that of Alexander. This is probably because of
the influence of Alexander to the bishops through his letters sent to them,
though they may be outside Alexandria and Egypt.[14]
The synod is also the pioneer in producing anathemas against wrong doctrines
and teaching.
The Synodal
Letter of Antioch in 325
The source of information regarding this synod is a letter
that the synod itself had sent to Alexander of Alexandria. The original Greek
text is now lost. However, three Syriac manuscripts survive: Par. Syr. 62;
Vatican Cod. Syr. 148; Mingana Syr. 8.[15]
The letter opens with the names of those who participated in
the synod. After the introductory notes, the author of the letter highlighted
the fact that the he did not desire to solve by himself the problems he had
found in the church in Antioch. And such is one of the very purpose of the
synod convoked; to find solution to the pressing needs of the Antiochene
church.
For since our brother and fellow
servant, the honored and beloved Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, had
excommunicated some of his presbyters, i.e. Arius and his friends, for
blasphemy which they directed against our Savior, though they were able by
their impious teaching to cause some to stray to such an extent that they were
received into communion by them, the holy synod decided to investigate this
questions first…[16]
We kept before us what Alexander,
Bishop of Alexandria, had done against Arius and his friends, that if any
clearly were tainted with teaching opposed to these actions, they too should be
expelled from the Church, to prevent them by their continued presence from
being able to seduce some of the simpler brethren.[17]
In the opening remarks of the synod, it is also clear that
they had Alexander of Alexandria as their guidepost in every decisions that
they would be making. Furthermore, the synod fathers were determined to
replicate the same attitude that Alexander had to the perceived enemies of the
Church, specifically to Arius and his
friends.
The letter of the synod proceeded to state the doctrines and
faith of the synod members. It was through a confession of faith that the synod
made such understanding on faith known. For the purpose of the present study,
the synod’s understanding of the Son will be presented. It is as follows:
And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-begotten Son,
begotten not from nothing, but from the Father; not made, but a genuine
offspring. He was begotten inexpressibly and unspeakably, because only the
Father who begot and the Son who was begotten know it, “for no one knows the
Father except the Son, or the Son except the Father” [Matt 11:27].[18]
He always exists and never before did he not exist, for we
have been taught from the holy Scriptures that he alone is God’s image. He is
not unbegotten, for he is clearly begotten of the Father. This status has not
been placed upon him; in fact, it would be godless blasphemy to say so. But the
scriptures say that he is the real and truly begotten Son, so we believe him to
be unchangeable and unalterable. He has not been begotten or come into being
merely by the Father’s will, nor has this status been placed upon him, which
would make him appear to be from nothing. But he was begotten as was fitting
for him, not at all according to the impermissible idea that he resembles, is
of similar nature to, or is associated with any of the things that came into
existence through him.[19]
But, because this transcends all thought, conception, and
expression, we simply confess that he has been begotten from the unbegotten
Father, God the Word, true Light, righteousness, Jesus Christ, Lord of all and
Savior. He is the image not of the will or of anything else except the actual
being (hypostasis*) of the Father. This one, the Son, God the Word, was also
born in the flesh from Mary the Mother of God and was made flesh. After
suffering and dying, he rose from the dead and was taken into heaven, and he
sits at the right hand of the Majesty of the Most High. He is coming to judge
the living and the dead.[20]
Just as the holy writings teach us to believe in our Savior,
so also they teach us to believe in one Spirit, one catholic church, the
resurrection of the dead, and the judgment which will pay back to each man
according to what he has done in the flesh, whether good or evil.[21]
The confession of faith of the synod concludes with an
anathema:
We anathematize those who say or think or proclaim that the
Son of God is a creation (ktisma); has come into being (genētos), or was made
(poiētos), or was not truly begotten; or that there was a time when he did not
exist (for we believe that he was and that he is Light); still also those who
think he is unchangeable only by his free will [i.e., not according to his
essence], as with those who think he did not exist before he was begotten and
that he is not unchanging by his nature as the Father is. He has been
proclaimed as the Father’s image in every respect, especially in this respect,
that he does not change.[22]
This confession of faith emphasized the Son as one who is
not created out nothing, but rather was begotten in an ineffable way, and that
he is the image of the Father in every respect. It is also noticeable the use
of biblical passages to support their claims. The synod’s letter concludes with
the partial excommunication of three personalities that, inn the view of the
synod, had openly transgressed against the conclusions of the synod.
This faith was put forth, and indeed the entire holy synod
consented and confessed that this is the apostolic teaching which alone is able
to save. All the fellow-ministers have the same understanding about these
issues. Only Theodotus of the Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in
Neronia, and Eusebius from the church in Caesarea of Palestine have appeared
together and brought forward ideas contrary to those expressed here, as if they
have forgotten the holy Scriptures and the apostolic teachings (though indeed
they have attempted to shiftily escape notice and hide their deceptions with
false, though persuasive-sounding arguments). In fact, from what they were
asked and what they asked in turn, they clearly were proven to agree completely
with Arius’ party, and to hold opinions contrary to what was established by our
synod.[23]
For this reason, that their hearts are so hardened, and that
they have no regard for the holy synod which rejected and disapproved of their
ideas in these matters, we all fellow-ministers in the synod have ruled not to
practice fellowship with these men, not to consider them worthy of fellowship,
since their faith is something other than that of the catholic church. (15.) So
that you might know of this, we write to you, so that you too can be on guard
against having fellowship with these men, and that you may not write to them or
receive letters of fellowship from them. You should also know this, that on
account of our great brotherly love, we of the synod have established a place
for them to repent and recognize the truth: the magnificent and sacred synod to
be held at Ancyra. So encourage all the like-minded brothers to spread this
message, so that they also will be able to know the facts about these men, how
some have been removed from the church and are not in agreement with her.[24]
The synod had partially excommunicated Theodotus of the
Laodicean church, Narcissus of the church in Neronia, and Eusebius from the
church in Caesarea of Palestine. These three were identified to be sympathetic
to the Arian cause and doctrine. Though the synod excommunicated these three,
they were given the chance to make themselves clear in a council that would be
convened in Ancyra. Thus, their excommunication is partial. This council would
later be convoked by Constantine on the same year, in Nicaea, since Nicaea
would be more accessible to more bishops who would be participating in the said
council.
One may ask: If the synod emphasized on the assertion that
the Son was not created out of nothing, but was begotten in an ineffable way,
and that he is the express image of the Father in every respect, why did then
the synod excommunicate Eusebius? Is Eusebius really against this emphasis of
the synod? Is
Eusebius’ understanding of the Son (Pre-Nicene) different from the
Synod’s understanding?
EUSEBIUS’ UNDERSTANDING OF THE SON
At this point due attention will be dedicated to Eusebius’
understanding of the Son through his Pre-Nicene writings, particularly in his
work Demonstratio Evangelica. The Demonstratio Evangelica is hereby chosen as
the source of Eusebius understanding of the Son as this work is extensively
dedicated in expounding the nature of the Son using the gospels.[25]
In his exposition on the Eusebian Theologies of the Son as
the image of God before 314, Mark Delcogliano presents Eusebius’ understanding
of the Son taking a so-called constitutive approach in the relation of the Son
with the Father. The nature of the Son as image consists in the being like of
the Father.[26]
Eusebius would employ biblical passages and expressions pertaining to the Son,
e.g. the form of God (Philippian 2:6), image of the invisible God (Collosians
1:15), radiance of the glory and the character of the subsistence of God
(Hebrew 1:3). Delcogliano states:
These titles of the Son reveal his relationship to the
father’s divinity, a relationship that is proper to him alone, as if to an only
begotten Son. Because of this relationship, the one God (Deut 4:35) is made
known through the Son as through an image. For that reasons the Son is also
God, because, in him as in an image, there is an expression of the Father.
Hence the Son is God only because he is the image of God, being called by this
title only because of his likeness to the first principle.[27]
The Son as the ineffable image of the Father does mean
simply a lifeless image. It is a living image; the living Son of the Father,
made in the exactness of the Father (in his archetypal Divinity). He is
begotten in the greatest degree of exactness possible. By virtue of being
begotten in the father exactitude, the Son is the manifestation of the Father’s
qualities, activity, essence, form and divinity, as the Son’s titles in the
scripture would suggest: form of God, image of the invisible God. Delcogliano
would further label such approach of Eusebius towards the Son in relation with
the Father as a constitutive approach, in contradistinction with Arius’ approach
as participatory approach.[28]
Eusebius’ constitutive approach to the Son’s relation with the Father would
further describe the Son as one who owns in himself his divinity, and not
merely participating to the divinity of the Father. The Father constituted, begot,
generated the Son in his own exact image, and essence, and in Himself a God
just like the Father. Thus, the essence of God is not foreign to the Son, since
the Son was constituted to have them as His own essence. In the Demonstratio
Evangelica, Eusebius further elucidated his understanding of the Son to be a
God, with the divine attributes the Son possessed in his very own essence. He
distinguished the Son from other creatures, making a distinction between
generation and creation. He excluded the Son from the category of creatures.
EUSEBIUS AND THE SYNOD: FACE TO FACE
The understanding on the Son by Eusebius and the Synod of
Antioch in 325 are alike. Both upheld the divinity of the Son. For the Synod,
The Son was not created out of nothing, but was begotten in an ineffable way,
and that he is the express image of the Father in every respect. While for
Eusebius, the Son is truly Son and God…because he alone who was begotten from
the Father himself, was in the form of God (Phil 2:6) and was the image of the
invisible God (Col 1:15). With the resemblance in the understanding about the
Son, why would the Synod proceed in partially excommunicating Eusebius?
One probable reason behind the partial excommunication of
Eusebius by the Synod is their difference in theological, political and social
sympathies and affiliations.
The Synod was heavily influenced by Alexander of Alexandria.
This is evident in the introductory headings of the Synod, as presented above.
The Antiochene church may had been greatly influenced by the Alexandrian bishop
through his letters sent to various churches outside Egypt. These letters
contained anti-Arius instructions. The presence of Ossius of Cordova may had contributed
too to the anti-Arius undertone of the Synod. Lastly, the influence of
Alexander of Alexandria to the Synod in translated to the goal that the Synod
had set before them; We kept before us what Alexander, Bishop of
Alexandria, had done against Arius and his friends, that if any clearly were
tainted with teaching opposed to these actions, they too should be expelled
from the Church. Thus, the
Synod was very much willing to observe the same stringent treatment of
Alexander towards Arius and his friends.
Eusebius was greatly associated
with Arius. The two were linked not necessarily by the doctrine they believed
in to nor the teachings they upheld. Eusebius and Arius were related through
the school of thought or the tradition in which they were formed. They were
both schooled in the Origenist tradition. Thus, it was not surprising that
Arius would find Eusebius openhearted towards him and his supporters, when
Alexander expelled them from his diocese.
In the end of his study on the
Eusebian theologies, Delcogliano concludes that among the Eusebians conflict
too occurred. This is primarily because in the fourth century, ecclesiastical
parties were not constituted by common set theological beliefs understood in
the same way. Parties are defined mainly by expectations and the activity of
mutual defense and correction, by common opposition to enemies considered as
such for reasons not necessarily theological, and by a minimum set of shared
doctrinal principles and formulas. These same principles and findings can also
be applied in the case of Eusebius and the Synod of Antioch. Though Eusebius’
may not had a different doctrine on the Son vis-à-vis the doctrine confessed by
the Synod, the latter chose to partially excommunicate the former. This is
because the Synod is of Alexander of Alexandria who happened to be the archenemy
of Arius who is a colleague of Eusebius in the Origenist school.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
The case of Eusebius and the Synod of Antioch in early 325 can be a classic case of You are either with us, or against us. The Synod perceived Eusebius to be one who was against them as he was with Arius (who was the object of Alexander and the Synod’s disapproval). Such mechanism by the Synod may had proved to be affective, for in the same year during the Council of Nicaea, Eusebius would professed a confession of faith together with Alexander of Alexandria, and Ossius of Cordova. [29] Eusebius did so not as a form of compromised to same his head but a manifestation of his and the rest of the church of Caesarea’s beliefs even before the convocation of such holy and sacred Council of Nicaea. This is manifested in his letter to his Diocese after the Council of Nicaea, indicating the creed they, Caesareans, held since his baptism; the creed himself had received.[30] If compared to that creed professed by the Synod of Antioch; Eusebius and the Caesareans creed particular that which pertains to the doctrine of the Son was of little different but assuredly with no Arian intent in it.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Articles
Delcogliano Mark. “Eusebian Theologies of the Son,” Journal of Early Christian Studies 14/4
(2006): 471.
Johnson, Aaron P. Review of Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism (Jewish
and Christian
Perspectives Series, Vol. III by Aryeh Kofsky. Vigiliae
Christianae, Vol. 59, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 209-212.
Murphy, Harold S. “Eusebius’ NT Text in the Demonstratio
Evangelica,” Journal of Biblical
Literature, Vol. 73, No. 3 (Sep., 1954), pp. 162-168.
Suggs, Jack M. “Eusebius and the Gospel Text,” The Harvard Theological Review, Vol. 50,
No. 4 (Oct., 1957), pp. 307-310.
Books
Drobner, Hubertus R. The
Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction; trans. Siegfried S.
Schatzmann. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007.
Luinheid, Colm. The
Essential Eusebius. New York: The New American Library, 1966.
Moreschini, Claudio and Enrico Norelli. Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, Vol. 1, From Paul to Constantine. trans.
Matthew J. O’Connell. Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005.
Pope Benedict XVI. The
Fathers of the Church: From Clement of Rome to Augustine. Joseph T.
Lienhard, S.J. ed. Cambridge: WB Eerdmans Publsihing Co., 2009.
Stevenson J., ed., A
New Eusebius: Documents illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337. London: SPCK, 1983.
Online Sources
A Chronology of the Arian Controversy. Accessed November 30,
2015. Available from http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/
churchhistory220/LectureTwo/ArianControversy.htm.
Bacchus F.J. Eusebius
of Cæsarea. in The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company.
Accessed November 27, 2015. Available from New Advent http://www.newadvent.org
/cathen/05617b.htm
Fragment of a letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander of
Alexandria. Accessed November 30, 2015available from
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-7.
Hanson R.P.C. The
Search for the Christian Doctrine of God. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Accessed November 28, 2015. Available from
http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-18/.
Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to all bishops (Henos
sōmatos). Accessed December 5, 2015. Available from
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-4b.
[1] Hubertus R. Drobner, The
Fathers of the Church: A Comprehensive Introduction; trans. Siegfried S.
Schatzmann (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007) 221.
[2] Henceforth simply Eusebius, other Eusebiuses will be
distinguished by suffixing their names with their place of origin
[3] F.J. Bacchus, Eusebius of Cæsarea. in The
Catholic Encyclopedia (New York: Robert Appleton Company). Accessed November
27, 2015. Available from New Advent http://www.newadvent.org /cathen/05617b.htm
[4] Claudio Moreschini and Enrico Norelli, Early Christian Greek and Latin Literature: A Literary History, Vol.
1, From Paul to Constantine, trans.
Matthew J. O’Connell (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 2005)413.
[5] Pamphilus was a student of of Pierius in Alexandria. He was
an heir in Caesarea to the example of Origen, whose library he tended and
expanded. This ascetic was able to gather students, one of them was Eusebius,
who busied themselves in the revision of biblical text, a task already started
by Origen (Moreschini 414).
[6] F.J. Bacchus, Eusebius of Cæsarea.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Moreschini, 414.
[9] A Chronology of the Arian Controversy Accessed November 30,
2015. Available from http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/
churchhistory220/LectureTwo/ArianControversy.htm.
[10] Fragment of a letter of Eusebius of Caesarea to Alexander
of Alexandria. Accessed November 30, 2015. Available from
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-7.
[11] Sozomen, Church History I.15
[12] Mark Delcogliano, “Eusebian Theologies of the Son,”: Journal of Early Christian Studies 14/4
(2006): 471.
[13] R.P.C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God.
Grand Rapids: Baker, 1988.
Accessed November 26,
2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-18/.
[14] Letter of Alexander of Alexandria to all bishops (Henos
sōmatos), accessed December 1, 2015, available from
http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/urkunde-4b, on.
[15] Letter of the Synod of Antioch (325), Accessed November 25,
2015. Available from http://www.fourthcentury.com/urkunde-18/.
[16] J. Stevenson, ed., A
New Eusebius: Documents illustrative of the History of the Church to A.D. 337
(London: SPCK, 1983) 355.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Ibid., 356.
[22] Ibid.
[23] Ibid.
[24] Ibid., 357.
[25] Aaron P. Johnson, review of Eusebius of Caesarea against Paganism(Jewish and Christian
Perspectives Series, Vol. III by Aryeh Kofsky. Vigiliae
Christianae, Vol. 59, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 209-212.
[26] Mark Delcogliano, 471.
[27] Ibid. 471-472.
[28] Constitutive and Participatory Models are heuristic devices
coined by Delcogliano to facilitate the understanding of the Eusebian
theologies on the Son.
[29]
F.J. Bacchus, Eusebius
of Cæsarea.
[30] Colm Luinheid, The
Essential Eusebius (New York: The New American Library, 1966) 217.
