| Honorific-Prefix: | Saint |
| Eustathius of Antioch | |
| Bishop of Antioch | |
| Term: | Circa 320 A.D. |
| Predecessor: | Philogonius |
| Successor: | Paulinus I |
| Birth Place: | Side, Roman Empire (modern-day Side, Turkey) |
| Death Date: | Circa 360 A.D. |
| Death Place: | Traianopolis, Roman Empire (modern-day Alexandroupoli, Greece) |
| Feast Day: | 16 July in the Roman Catholic Church 21 February in Eastern Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy |
| Attributes: | Bishop |
| Venerated: | Catholic Church Eastern Orthodox Church |
Eustathius of Antioch, sometimes surnamed the Great, was a Christian bishop and archbishop of Antioch in the 4th century. His feast day in the Eastern Orthodox Church is February 21.
He was a native of Side in Pamphylia. About 320 he was bishop of Beroea, and he became patriarch of Antioch shortly before the Council of Nicaea in 325. In that assembly he distinguished himself zealously against the Arians,[1] though the Allocutio ad Imperatorem with which he has been credited is probably not by him. At Nicaea, he and Marcellus joined forces with Alexander.[2] [3] In this way, they were able to significantly influence the formulation of the Nicene Creed.[4]
His anti-Arian polemic against Eusebius of Nicomedia made him unpopular among his fellow bishops in the East, and a synod convened at Antioch in 330 deposed him for Sabellianism,[5] which was confirmed by the emperor.
After Nicaea, the conflict at Nicaea between the Eusebians and the pro-Nicenes continued. “Within ten years of the Council of Nicaea all the leading supporters of the creed of that Council had been deposed or disgraced or exiled," including Eustathius.[6] Arius and his theology were now no longer the focus of the Controversy.[7] The focus of the controversy was now the term homoousios:
“The fifth-century ecclesiastical historian Sozomen reports a dispute immediately after the council, focused not on Arius, but … concerning the precise meaning of the term homoousios. Some thought this term … implied the non-existence of the Son of God; and that it involved the error of Montanus and Sabellius. … Eustathius accused Eusebius [of Caesarea] of altering the doctrines ratified by the council of Nicaea, while the latter declared that he approved of all the Nicaean doctrines, and reproached Eustathius for cleaving to the heresy of Sabellius.”[8]Eustathius was accused, condemned, and deposed at a synod in Antioch.[9] His supporters at Antioch rebelled against the decision of this synod and were ready to take up arms in his defence.[10] But Eustathius kept them in check, exhorted them to remain true to their faith and humbly left for his place of exile, accompanied by a large body of his clergy. Eustathius was banished to Trajanopolis in Thrace, where he died, probably about 337, though possibly not until 370.[11] The Eusebians proposed Eusebius as the new bishop, but he declined.
Eustathius' adherents in Antioch formed a separate community by the name of "Eustathians" and refused to acknowledge the bishops set over them by the Eusebians. Eustathius asserted one hypostasis in God.[12] This means that he did not recognize the Logos as a hypostasis; a distinct existence.[13] For Him, Jesus Christ was not the Logos but a mere man.[14] For him, the Logos existed as an energy in the man Jesus.[15]
When, after the death of Eustathius, Meletius became Bishop of Antioch in 360, the Eustathians would not recognize him, even after his election was approved by the Synod of Alexandria in 362. Their intransigent attitude gave rise to two factions among the orthodox, the so-called Meletian Schism, which lasted till the second decade of the fifth century.[16]
"The schism at Antioch, between the Eustathians, or old Catholic party, under their Bishop Paulinus … and the new Catholic party under S. Meletius, had troubled both the East and West. The holiest Bishops in the East, such as S. Basil and S. Eusebius of Samosata, sided with Meletius. S. Damasus and the Western Bishops communicated with Paulinus. Meletius asserted Three Hypostases in the HOLY TRINITY, Paulinus One: S. Damasus would not allow the former, for fear of being considered an Arian, nor S. Basil the latter, lest he should be imagined a Sabellian.… Peter served as a kind of connection between the two conflicting parties, though his sentiments inclined to those of Damasus. S. Basil addressed a letter to him while at Rome, on the subject, in which he complains in very strong language, that the Western Bishops, who could not be so well acquainted with the actual state of affairs, should presume to class Meletius and Eusebius among the Arians."[17]The only complete work by Eustathius is the De Engastrimytho contra Origenem.[18]
The Commentary on the Hexameron attributed to him in the manuscripts is too late to be authentic.