Scanned text contains errors.
114
Molion or Deion, Clytius, and Toxeus. (Dibd. iv. 87.) He was proud of his skill in using the bow, and is even said to have instructed Heracles in his art. (Theocrit. xxiv. 105 ; Apollod. ii. 4. § 9 Soph. I. c.) He offered his daughter Iole as prize to him who should conquer him and his sons in shooting with the bow. Heracles won the prize, but Eurytus and his sons, with the exception of Iphitus, refused to give up lole, because they feared lest he should kill the children he might have by her. (Apollod. ii. 6. § 1.) Heracles accordingly marched against Oechalia with an army : he took the place and killed Eurytus and his sons. (Apollod. ii. 7. § 7.) According to a tradition in Athenaeus (xi. p. 461) he put them to death because they had demanded a tribute from the Euboe-ans. According to the Homeric poems, on the other hand, Eurytus was killed by Apollo whom he presumed to rival in using the bow. (Od. viii. 226.) The remains of the body of Eurytus were believed to be preserved in the Carnasian grove ; and in the Messenian Oechalia sacrifices Avere offered to him every year. (Paus. iv. 3. § 6, 27. 4, 33. §5.)
2. A son of Actor and Molione of Elis. (Horn. 77. ii. 621 ; Apollod. ii. 7. § 2 ; Paus. ii. 15. § 1 ; Eurip. Iph. Aul. 270.) [moliones.]
3. A son of Hermes and Antianeira, and brother of Echion, was one of the Argonauts. (Apollod. i. 9. § 16 ; Hygin. Fab. 14, 160 ; Val. Flacc. i. 439.) He is sometimes also called Erytus. (Find. Pytk. iv. 179; Apollon. Rhod. i. 51 Orph. Arg. 133.) There are two more mythical
-personages of this name. (Apollod. iii. 10, § 5, i. 6. §2.) [L. S.]
EURYTUS(EfywTos),an eminent Pythagorean philosopher, whom lamblichus in one passage (de Vit. Pyth. 28) describes as a native of Croton, while in another (ibid. 36)' he enumerates him among the Tarentine Pythagoreans. He was a disciple of Philolaus, and Diogenes Laertius (iii. 6,
1 viii. 46) mentions him among the teachers of Plato, though this statement is very doubtful... It is uncertain whether Eurytus was the author of any
1 work, unless we suppose that the fragment in Stobaeus (Phys. EcL i. p. 210), which is there
•ascribed to one Eurytus, belongs to our Eurytus. (Ritter, Gesch. derPythag.Philos. p. 64, &c.) [L.S.] EUSE'BIUS (Evff&ios) of caesareia, the father of ecclesiastical history, took the surname of Pamphili, to commemorate his devoted friendship for" Pamphilus, bishop of Caesareia. He was born m Palestine about a. d. 264, towards the end of the reign of the Emperor Gallienus. He spent his youth in incessant study, and probably held some offices in the church off Caesareia. In a. d. 303, Diocletian's edict was issued, and the persecution of the Christians began. Pamphilus was imprisoned in 307, and was inost affectionately attended oh by Eusebius for two years, at the end of which time he suffered martyrdom, and Eusebius fled to Tyre, where he was kindly received by the bishop Paulinus; but afterwards he removed to Egypt, and was imprisoned there in the course of the persecution. After his release he 'returned to Caesareia, and succeeded Agapius as bishop of that see about 315. He was summoned to the council of Nicaea in 327, and was there appointed to receive Constantine with a panegyrical oration, and to sit on his right hand. The course of events now made it necessary for him to form a j
distinct opinion on the relation of the first two Persons in the Trinity. There is no doubt that in many of his works, especially in those which he wrote before this time, but also in others, several expressions may be found inconsistent with each other, some of which can only be understood in a semiarian sense. Thus in the Demonstratio Evangelica he speaks of the Son as d^ofjtoicofjievo^ rip Harpl Kdrot iravTct.^ o/jloios ko.t* otiaiav. In the Praepafatio Evang. iv. 3, he denies that the Son is like the Father dirXtos diSios; for (he adds) 6 Harrip irpovira.px*i tov T/ow Kal rrjs yevecrews av-tov TTpov(j)4(Trif)K€ ; only the Son is not created, and everything perishable must be separated from our conception of His nature. But with regard to all his earlier statements of doctrine, we must remember that till Arius's opinions, with their full bearings and consequences, were generally known, it was very possible for a person to use language apparently somewhat favourable to them, quite unintentionally, since the true faith on the subject of our Lord's divinity had not yet been couched in certain formulae, of which the use after the controversy was mooted, became as it were the test of a man's opinions ; nor had general attention been called to the results of differences apparently trifling. Eusebius's views on the subject seem to have been based on those of Origen, though indeed he deprecated the discussion of the question as above human comprehension, recommending men to be satisfied with the scriptural declaration, " So God loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish, but have everlasting life;" " not," as he argues, " whosoever knows how He is generated from the Father." But in the Eccle-siastica Theologia (after the rise of Arianism) he declares (i. 8, ix. 5) against those who reckon Christ among the /cTto-juara, asserting God to be the Father of Christ, but the Creator of all other, beings. Again: in the Ecclesiastical History (x. 4) he calls Him avrodeos, and in other places uses language which proves him to have fully believed in His divinity. He was, however, of course disposed to regard, Arius with mildness, and wrote to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his defence ; arguing that though Arius had called Christ &eov TeA€«?j>, he had added «AA ovx <*>* KTKTfjLdruv. Thus he took his seat at the council of Nicaea not indeed as a partizan of Arius, but as anxious to shield him from censure for opinions whose importance, either for good or evil, he considered exaggerated. He accordingly appeared there as head of the moderate section of the council, and drew up a creed which he hoped would satisfy both the extreme parties, of which the Arian was favoured by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of Nicaea; while their opponents were led by Alexander, whose deacon Athanasius, afterwards so famous, accompanied him to the council, arid rendered him great service. This formula, which is to be found in Socrates (Hixt. EccL i. 5), chiefly differs from the Nicene Creed in containing the expression Ttpwrk to/cos irdcrrjs Krlffetas (from Col. i. 15) instead of the declaration that Christ is of live same substance with the Father, expressed in the adjective o/jloovo-iov ; and the phrase " Very God of Very God," is not Found in it after " God of God, Light of Light." This creed was accepted by Arms; but Alexander insisted on the addition of (fyiooiJtnoSj to which Con-
