International Zeitschrift Literature Archives: Eusebius Pamphilius' Church History

Church History by Eusebius Pamphilius

Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Based on the print version: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Public Domain.

Preface

The present translation of the Church History of Eusebius has been made
from Heinichen's second edition of the Greek text, but variant readings
have been adopted without hesitation whenever they have approved
themselves to my judgment. In all such cases the variation from
Heinichen's text has been indicated in the notes. A simple revision of
Cruse's English version was originally proposed, but a brief
examination of it was sufficient to convince me that a satisfactory
revision would be an almost hopeless task, and that nothing short of a
new and independent translation ought to be undertaken. In the
preparation of that translation, invaluable assistance has been
rendered by my father, the Rev. Joseph N. McGiffert, D.D., for whose
help and counsel I desire thus publicly to give expression to my
profound gratitude. The entire translation has been examined by him and
owes much to his timely suggestions and criticisms; while the
translation itself of a considerable portion of the work (Bks. V.-VIII.
and the Martyrs of Palestine) is from his hand. The part thus rendered
by him I have carefully revised for the purpose of securing uniformity
in style and expression throughout the entire work, and I therefore
hold myself alone responsible for it as well as for the earlier and
later books. As to the principle upon which the translation has been
made, little need be said. The constant endeavor has been to reproduce
as nearly as possible, both the substance and form of the original, and
in view of the peculiar need of accuracy in such a work as the present,
it has seemed better in doubtful cases to run the risk of erring in the
direction of over-literalness rather than in that of undue license.

A word of explanation in regard to the notes which accompany the text
may not be out of place. In view of the popular character of the series
of which the present volume forms a part, it seemed important that the
notes should contain much supplementary information in regard to
persons, places, and events mentioned in the text which might be quite
superfluous to the professional historian as well as to the student
enjoying access to libraries rich in historical and bibliographical
material, and I have therefore not felt justified in confining myself
to such questions as might interest only the critical scholar.
Requested by the general editor to make the work in some sense a
general history of, or historical commentary upon, the first three
centuries of the Christian Church, I have ventured to devote
considerable space to a fuller presentation of various subjects but
briefly touched upon or merely referred to by Eusebius. At the same
time my chief endeavor has been, by a careful study of difficult and
disputed points, to do all that I could for their elucidation, and thus
to perform as faithfully as possible the paramount duty of a
commentator. The number and fulness of the notes needed in such a work
must of course be matter of dispute, but annoyed as I have repeatedly
been by the fragmentary character of the annotations in the existing
editions of the work, I have been anxious to avoid that defect, and
have therefore passed by no passage which seemed to me to need
discussion, nor consciously evaded any difficulty. Working with
historical students constantly in mind I have felt it due to them to
fortify all my statements by references to the authorities upon which
they have been based, and to indicate at the same time with sufficient
fullness the sources whose examination a fuller investigation of the
subject on their part might render necessary. The modern works which
have been most helpful are mentioned in the notes, but I cannot in
justice refrain from making especial reference at this point to Smith
and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography which has been constantly
at my side, and to the first and second volumes of Schaff's Church
History, whose bibliographies have been especially serviceable. Many of
Valesius' notes have been found very suggestive and must always remain
valuable in spite of the great advance made in historical knowledge
since his day. For the commentary of Heinichen less can be said.
Richardson's Bibliographical Synopsis, published as a supplement to the
Ante-Nicene Library, did not come into my hands until the greater part
of the work was completed. In the preparation of the notes upon the
latter portion it proved helpful, and its existence has enabled me
throughout the work to omit extended lists of books which it would
otherwise have been necessary to give.

It was my privilege some three years ago to study portions of the
fourth and fifth books of Eusebius' Church History with Professor Adolf
Harnack in his Seminar at Marburg. Especial thanks are due for the help
and inspiration gained from that eminent scholar, and for the light
thrown by him upon many difficult passages in those portions of the
work.

It gives me pleasure also to express my obligation to Dr. Isaac G.
Hall, of New York, and to Dr. E. C. Richardson, of Hartford, for
information furnished by them in regard to certain editions of the
History, also to the Rev. Charles R. Gillett, Librarian of Union
Theological Seminary, and to the Rev. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of
Princeton Theological Seminary, for their kindness in granting me the
privileges of the libraries under their charge, and for their unfailing
courtesy shown me in many ways. To Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville,
Ky., my thanks are due for his translation of the Testimonies for and
against Eusebius, printed at the close of the Prolegomena, and to Mr.
F. E. Moore, of New Albany, Ind., for assistance rendered in connection
with the preparation of the indexes.

Arthur Cushman McGiffert.

Lane Theological Seminary,

April 15, 1890.
________________________________________________________________

Prolegomena.

__________

The Life and writings of

Eusebius of Caesarea.

Chapter I

The Life of Eusebius.

S: 1. Sources and Literature

Acacius, the pupil and successor of Eusebius in the bishopric of
Caesarea, wrote a life of the latter (Socr. H. E. II. 4) which is
unfortunately lost. He was a man of ability (Sozomen H. E. III. 2, IV.
23) and had exceptional opportunities for producing a full and accurate
account of Eusebius' life; the disappearance of his work is therefore
deeply to be regretted.

Numerous notices of Eusebius are found in the works of Socrates,
Sozomen, Theodoret, Athanasius, Jerome, and other writers of his own
and subsequent ages, to many of which references will be made in the
following pages. A collection of these notices, made by Valesius, is
found in English translation on p. 57 sq. of this volume. The chief
source for a knowledge of Eusebius' life and character is to be found
in his own works. These will be discussed below, on p. 26 sq. Of the
numerous modern works which treat at greater or less length of the life
of Eusebius I shall mention here only those which I have found most
valuable.

Valesius: De vita scriptisque Eusebii Diatribe (in his edition of
Eusebius' Historia Eccles.; English version in Cruse's translation of
the same work).

Cave: Lives of the Fathers, II. 95-144 (ed. H. Cary, Oxf. 1840).

Tillemont: Hist. Eccles. VII. pp. 39-75 (compare also his account of
the Arians in vol. VI.).

Stroth: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his German translation of
the Hist. Eccles.).

Closs: Leben und Schriften des Eusebius (in his translation of the same
work).

Danz: De Eusebio Caesariensi, Historiae Eccles. Scriptore, ejusque fide
historica recte aestimanda, Cap. II.: de rebus ad Eusebii vitam
pertinentibus (pp. 33-75).

Stein: Eusebius Bischof von Caesarea. Nach seinem Leben, seinen
Schriften, und seinem dogmatischen Charakter dargestellt (Wuerzburg,
1859; full and valuable).

Bright, in the introduction to his edition of Burton's text of the
Hist. Eccles. (excellent).

Lightfoot (Bishop of Durham): Eusebius of Caesarea, in Smith and Wace's
Dictionary of Christian Biography, vol. II. pp. 308-348. Lightfoot's
article is a magnificent monument of patristic scholarship and contains
the best and most exhaustive treatment of the life and writings of
Eusebius that has been written.

The student may be referred finally to all the larger histories of the
Church (e.g. Schaff, vol. III. 871 sqq. and 1034 sq.), which contain
more or less extended accounts of Eusebius.
________________________________________________________________

S:2. Eusebius' Birth and Training. His Life in Caesarea until the
Outbreak of the Persecution.

Our author was commonly known among the ancients as Eusebius of
Caesarea or Eusebius Pamphili. The former designation arose from the
fact that he was bishop of the church in Caesarea for many years; the
latter from the fact that he was the intimate friend and devoted
admirer of Pamphilus, a presbyter of Caesarea and a martyr. Some such
specific appellation was necessary to distinguish him from others of
the same name. Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography
mentions 137 men of the first eight centuries who bore the name
Eusebius, and of these at least forty were contemporaries of our
author. The best known among them were Eusebius of Nicomedia (called by
Arius the brother of Eusebius of Caesarea), Eusebius of Emesa, and
Eusebius of Samosata.

The exact date of our author's birth is unknown to us, but his
Ecclesiastical History contains notices which enable us to fix it
approximately. In H. E. V. 28 he reports that Paul of Samosata
attempted to revive again in his day (kath' hemas) the heresy of
Artemon. But Paul of Samosata was deposed from the episcopate of
Antioch in 272, and was condemned as a heretic at least as early as
268, so that Eusebius must have been born before the latter date, if
his words are to be strictly interpreted. Again, according to H. E.
III. 28, Dionysius was bishop of Alexandria in Eusebius' time (kath'
hemas). But Dionysius was bishop from 247 or 248 to 265, and therefore
if Eusebius' words are to be interpreted strictly here as in the former
case, he must have been born before 265. On the other hand, inasmuch as
his death occurred about 340, we cannot throw his birth much earlier
than 260. It is true that the references to Paul and to Dionysius do
not prove conclusively that Eusebius was alive in their day, for his
words may have been used in a loose sense. But in H. E. VII. 26, just
before proceeding to give an account of Paul of Samosata, he draws the
line between his own and the preceding generation, declaring that he is
now about to relate the events of his own age (ten kath' hemas). This
still further confirms the other indications, and we shall consequently
be safe in concluding that Eusebius was born not far from the year 260
a.d. His birthplace cannot be determined with certainty. The fact that
he is called "Eusebius the Palestinian" by Marcellus (Euseb. lib. adv.
Marcell. I. 4), Basil (Lib. ad. Amphil. de Spir. Sancto, c. 29), and
others, does not prove that he was a Palestinian by birth; for the
epithet may be used to indicate merely his place of residence (he was
bishop of Caesarea in Palestine for many years). Moreover, the argument
urged by Stein and Lightfoot in support of his Palestinian birth,
namely, that it was customary to elect to the episcopate of any church
a native of the city in preference to a native of some other place,
does not count for much. All that seems to have been demanded was that
a man should have been already a member of the particular church over
which he was to be made bishop, and even this rule was not universal
(see Bingham's Antiquities, II. 10, 2 and 3). The fact that he was
bishop of Caesarea therefore would at most warrant us in concluding
only that he had made his residence in Caesarea for some time previous
to his election to that office. Nevertheless, although neither of these
arguments proves his Palestinian birth, it is very probable that he was
a native of that country, or at least of that section. He was
acquainted with Syriac as well as with Greek, which circumstance taken
in connection with his ignorance of Latin (see below, p. 47) points to
the region of Syria as his birthplace. Moreover, we learn from his own
testimony that he was in Caesarea while still a youth (Vita
Constantini, I. 19), and in his epistle to the church of Caesarea (see
below, p. 16) he says that he was taught the creed of the Caesarean
church in his childhood (or at least at the beginning of his Christian
life: en te katechesei), and that he accepted it at baptism. It would
seem therefore that he must have lived while still a child either in
Caesarea itself, or in the neighborhood, where its creed was in use.
Although no one therefore (except Theodorus Metochita of the fourteenth
century, in his Cap. Miscell. 17; Migne, Patr. Lat. CXLIV. 949)
directly states that Eusebius was a Palestinian by birth, we have every
reason to suppose him such.

His parents are entirely unknown. Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37)
reports that his mother was a sister of Pamphilus. He does not mention
his authority for this statement, and it is extremely unlikely, in the
face of the silence of Eusebius himself and of all other writers, that
it is true. It is far more probable that the relationship was later
assumed to account for the close intimacy of the two men. Arius, in an
epistle addressed to Eusebius of Nicomedia (contained in Theodoret's
Hist. Eccles. I. 5), calls Eusebius of Caesarea the latter's brother.
It is objected to this that Eusebius of Nicomedia refers to Eusebius of
Caesarea on one occasion as his "master" (tou despotou mou, in his
epistle to Paulinus contained in Theodoret's Hist. Eccles. I. 6), and
that on the other hand Eusebius of Caesarea calls Eusebius of
Nicomedia, "the great Eusebius" (Euseb. lib. adv. Marcell. I. 4), both
of which expressions seem inconsistent with brotherhood. Lightfoot
justly remarks that neither the argument itself nor the objections
carry much weight. The term adelphos may well have been used to
indicate merely theological or ecclesiastical association, while on the
other hand, brotherhood would not exclude the form of expression
employed by each in speaking of the other. Of more weight is the fact
that neither Eusebius himself nor any historian of that period refers
to such a relationship, and also the unlikelihood that two members of
one family should bear the same name.

From Eusebius' works we gather that he must have received an extensive
education both in secular philosophy and in Biblical and theological
science. Although his immense erudition was doubtless the result of
wide and varied reading continued throughout life, it is highly
probable that he acquired the taste for such reading in his youth. Who
his early instructors were we do not know, and therefore cannot
estimate the degree of their influence over him. As he was a man,
however, who cherished deep admiration for those whom he regarded as
great and good men, and as he possessed an unusually acquisitive mind
and a pliant disposition, we should naturally suppose that his
instructors must have possessed considerable influence over him, and
that his methods of study in later years must have been largely molded
by their example and precept. We see this exemplified in a remarkable
degree in the influence exerted over him by Pamphilus, his dearest
friend, and at the same time the preceptor, as it were, of his early
manhood. Certainly this great bibliopholist must have done much to
strengthen Eusebius' natural taste for omnivorous reading, and the
opportunities afforded by his grand library for the cultivation of such
a taste were not lost. To the influence of Pamphilus, the devoted
admirer and enthusiastic champion of Origen, was doubtless due also in
large measure the deep respect which Eusebius showed for that
illustrious Father, a respect to which we owe one of the most
delightful sections of his Church History, his long account of Origen
in the sixth book, and to which in part antiquity was indebted for the
elaborate Defense of Origen, composed by Pamphilus and himself, but
unfortunately no longer extant. Eusebius certainly owed much to the
companionship of that eager student and noble Christian hero, and he
always recognized with deep gratitude his indebtedness to him. (Compare
the account of Pamphilus given below in Bk. VII. chap. 32, S:25 sq.)
The names of his earlier instructors, who were eminently successful, at
least in fostering his thirst for knowledge, are quite unknown to us.
His abiding admiration for Plato, whom he always placed at the head of
all philosophers (see Stein, p. 6), would lead us to think that he
received at least a part of his secular training from some ardent
Platonist, while his intense interest in apologetics, which lasted
throughout his life, and which affected all his works, seems to
indicate the peculiar bent of his early Christian education. Trithemius
concluded from a passage in his History (VII. 32) that Eusebius was a
pupil of the learned Dorotheus of Antioch, and Valesius, Lightfoot and
others are apparently inclined to accept his conclusion. But, as Stroth
remarks (Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, p. xix), all that Eusebius says is
that he had heard Dorotheus expound the Scriptures in the church
(toutou metrios tas graphas epi tes ekklesias diegoumenou
katekousamen), that is, that he had heard him preach. To conclude from
this statement that he was a pupil of Dorotheus is certainly quite
unwarranted.

Stroth's suggestion that he probably enjoyed the instruction of
Meletius for seven years during the persecution rests upon no good
ground, for the passage which he relies upon to sustain his opinion (H.
E. VII. 32. 28) says only that Eusebius "observed Meletius well"
(katenoesamen) during those seven years.

In Caesarea Eusebius was at one time a presbyter of the church, as we
may gather from his words in the epistle to that church already
referred to, where, in speaking of the creed, he says, "As we believed
and taught in the presbytery and in the episcopate itself." But the
attempt to fix the date of his ordination to that office is quite vain.
It is commonly assumed that he became presbyter while Agapius was
bishop of Caesarea, and this is not unlikely, though we possess no
proof of it (upon Agapius see below, H. E. VII. 32, note 39). In his
Vita Constantini, I. 19, Eusebius reports that he saw Constantine for
the first time in Caesarea in the train of the Emperor Diocletian. In
his Chron. Eusebius reports that Diocletian made an expedition against
Egypt, which had risen in rebellion in the year 296 a.d., and
Theophanes, in his Chron., says that Constantine accompanied him. It is
probable therefore that it was at this time that Eusebius first saw
Constantine in Caesarea, when he was either on his way to Egypt, or on
his way back (see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp., IV. p. 34).

During these years of quiet, before the great persecution of
Diocletian, which broke out in 303 a.d., Eusebius' life must have been
a very pleasant one. Pamphilus' house seems to have been a sort of
rendezvous for Christian scholars, perhaps a regular divinity school;
for we learn from Eusebius' Martyrs in Palestine (Cureton's edition,
pp. 13 and 14) that he and a number of others, including the martyr
Apphianus, were living together in one house at the time of the
persecution, and that the latter was instructed in the Scriptures by
Pamphilus and acquired from him virtuous habits and conduct. The great
library of Pamphilus would make his house a natural center for
theological study, and the immense amount of work which was done by
him, or under his direction, in the reproduction of copies of the Holy
Scriptures, of Origen's works (see Jerome's de vir. ill. 75 and 81, and
contra Ruf. I. 9), and in other literary employments of the same kind,
makes it probable that he had gathered about him a large circle of
friends and students who assisted him in his labors and profited by his
counsel and instruction. Amidst these associations Eusebius passed his
early manhood, and the intellectual stimulus thus given him doubtless
had much to do with his future career. He was above all a literary man,
and remained such to the end of his life. The pleasant companionships
of these days, and the mutual interest and sympathy which must have
bound those fellow-students and fellow-disciples of Pamphilus very
close together, perhaps had much to do with that broad-minded spirit of
sympathy and tolerance which so characterized Eusebius in later years.
He was always as far as possible from the character of a recluse. He
seems ever to have been bound by very strong ties to the world itself
and to his fellow-men. Had his earlier days been filled with trials and
hardships, with the bitterness of disappointed hopes and unfulfilled
ambitions, with harsh experiences of others' selfishness and treachery,
who shall say that the whole course of his life might not have been
changed, and his writings have exhibited an entirely different spirit
from that which is now one of their greatest charms? Certainly he had
during these early years in Caesarea large opportunities for
cultivating that natural trait of admiration for other men, which was
often so strong as to blind him even to their faults, and that natural
kindness which led him to see good wherever it existed in his Christian
brethren. At the same time these associations must have had
considerable influence in fostering the apologetic temper. The pursuits
of the little circle were apparently exclusively Christian, and in that
day when Christianity stood always on its defense, it would naturally
become to them a sacred duty to contribute to that defense and to
employ all their energies in the task. It has been remarked that the
apologetic temper is very noticeable in Eusebius' writings. It is more
than that; we may say indeed in general terms that everything he wrote
was an apology for the faith. His History was written avowedly with an
apologetic purpose, his Chronicle was composed with the same end in
view. Even when pronouncing a eulogy upon a deceased emperor he seized
every possible opportunity to draw from that emperor's career, and from
the circumstances of his reign, arguments for the truth and grandeur of
the Christian religion. His natural temper of mind and his early
training may have had much to do with this habit of thought, but
certainly those years with Pamphilus and his friends in Caesarea must
have emphasized and developed it.

Another characteristic which Pamphilus and the circle that surrounded
him doubtless did something to develop in our author was a certain
superiority to the trammels of mere traditionalism, or we might perhaps
better say that they in some measure checked the opposite tendency of
slavishness to the traditional which seems to have been natural to him.
Pamphilus' deep reverence for Origen proclaims him at once superior to
that kind of narrow conservatism which led many men as learned and
doubtless as conscientious as himself to pass severe and unconditional
condemnation upon Origen and all his teaching. The effect of
championing his cause must have fostered in this little circle, which
was a very hotbed of Origenism, a contempt for the narrow and unfair
judgments of mere traditionalists, and must have led them to seek in
some degree the truth solely for its own sake, and to become in a
measure careless of its relation to the views of any school or church.
It could hardly be otherwise than that the free and fearless spirit of
Origen should leave its impress through his writings upon a circle of
followers so devoted to him as were these Caesarean students. Upon the
impressionable Eusebius these influences necessarily operated. And yet
he brought to them no keen speculative powers, no deep originality such
as Origen himself possessed. His was essentially an acquisitive, not a
productive mind, and hence it was out of the question that he should
become a second Origen. It was quite certain that Origen's influence
over him would weaken somewhat his confidence in the traditional as
such,--a confidence which is naturally great in such minds as his,--but
at the same time would do little to lessen the real power of the past
over him. He continued to get his truth from others, from the great men
of the past with whom he had lived and upon whose thought he had
feasted. All that he believed he had drawn from them; he produced
nothing new for himself, and his creed was a traditional creed. And yet
he had at the same time imbibed from his surroundings the habit of
questioning and even criticising the past, and, in spite of his abiding
respect for it, had learned to feel that the voice of the many is not
always the voice of truth, and that the widely and anciently accepted
is sometimes to be corrected by the clearer sight of a single man.
Though he therefore depended for all he believed so completely upon the
past, his associations had helped to free him from a slavish adherence
to all that a particular school had accepted, and had made him in some
small measure an eclectic in his relations to doctrines and opinions of
earlier generations. A notable instance of this eclecticism on his part
is seen in his treatment of the Apocalypse of John. He felt the force
of an almost universal tradition in favor of its apostolic origin, and
yet in the face of that he could listen to the doubts of Dionysius, and
could be led by his example, in a case where his own dissatisfaction
with the book acted as an incentive, almost, if not quite, to reject it
and to ascribe it to another John. Instances of a similar mode of
conduct on his part are quite numerous. While he is always a staunch
apologist for Christianity, he seldom, if ever, degenerates into a mere
partisan of any particular school or sect.

One thing in fact which is particularly noticeable in Eusebius' works
is the comparatively small amount of time and space which he devotes to
heretics. With his wide and varied learning and his extensive
acquaintance with the past, he had opportunities for successful heresy
hunting such as few possessed, and yet he never was a heresy hunter in
any sense. This is surprising when we remember what a fascination this
employment had for so many scholars of his own age, and when we realize
that his historical tastes and talents would seem to mark him out as
just the man for that kind of work. May it not be that the lofty spirit
of Origen, animating that Caesarean school, had something to do with
the happy fact that he became an apologist instead of a mere polemic,
that he chose the honorable task of writing a history of the Church
instead of anticipating Epiphanius' Panarium?

It was not that he was not alive to the evils of heresy. He shared with
nearly all good church-men of his age an intense aversion for those
who, as he believed, had corrupted the true Gospel of Christ. Like them
he ascribed heresy to the agency of the evil one, and was no more able
than they to see any good in a man whom he looked upon as a real
heretic, or to do justice in any degree to the error which he taught.
His condemnations of heretics in his Church History are most severe.
Language is hardly strong enough to express his aversion for them. And
yet, although he is thus most thoroughly the child of his age, the
difference between him and most of his contemporaries is very apparent.
He mentions these heretics only to dismiss them with disapproval or
condemnation. He seldom, if ever, discusses and refutes their views.
His interests lie evidently in other directions; he is concerned with
higher things. A still more strongly marked difference between himself
and many churchmen of his age lies in his large liberality towards
those of his own day who differed with him in minor points of faith,
and his comparative indifference to the divergence of views between the
various parties in the Church. In all this we believe is to be seen not
simply the inherent nature of the man, but that nature as trained in
the school of Pamphilus, the disciple of Origen.
________________________________________________________________

S:3. The Persecution of Diocletian.

In this delightful circle and engaged in such congenial tasks, the time
must have passed very happily for Eusebius, until, in 303, the terrible
persecution of Diocletian broke upon the Church almost like a
thunderbolt out of a clear sky. The causes of the sudden change of
policy on Diocletian's part, and the terrible havoc wrought in the
Church, it is not my intention to discuss here (see below, Bk. VIII.
chap. 2, note 3 sq.). We are concerned with the persecution only in so
far as it bears upon the present subject. In the first year of the
persecution Procopius, the first martyr of Palestine, was put to death
at Caesarea (Eusebius' Martyrs of Palestine, Cureton's ed. p. 4), and
from that time on that city, which was an important Christian center,
was the scene of a tempest which raged with greater or less violence,
and with occasional cessations, for seven years. Eusebius himself was
an eyewitness of many martyrdoms there, of which he gives us an account
in his Martyrs of Palestine. The little circle which surrounded
Pamphilus did not escape. In the third year of the persecution (Mart.
of Pal. p. 12 sq.) a youth named Apphianus, or Epiphanius (the former
is given in the Greek text, the latter in the Syriac), who "resided in
the same house with us, confirming himself in godly doctrine, and being
instructed by that perfect martyr, Pamphilus" (as Eusebius says),
committed an act of fanatical daring which caused his arrest and
martyrdom. It seems that without the knowledge of his friends,
concealing his design even from those who dwelt in the same house with
him, he laid hold of the hand of the governor, Arbanus, who was upon
the point of sacrificing, and endeavored to dissuade him from offering
to "lifeless idols and wicked devils." His arrest was of course the
natural consequence, and he had the glory of witnessing a good
profession and suffering a triumphant death. Although Eusebius speaks
with such admiration of his conduct, it is quite significant of the
attitude of himself, and of most of the circle of which he was one,
that Apphianus felt obliged to conceal his purpose from them. He
doubtless feared that they would not permit him to perform the rash act
which he meditated, and we may conclude from that, that the circle in
the main was governed by the precepts of good common sense, and avoided
that fanaticism which so frequently led men, as in the present case it
led Apphianus, to expose themselves needlessly, and even to court
martyrdom. It is plain enough from what we know of Eusebius' general
character that he himself was too sensible to act in that way. It is
true that he speaks with admiration of Apphianus' conduct, and in H. E.
VIII. 5, of the equally rash procedure of a Nicomedian Christian; but
that does not imply that he considered their course the wisest one, and
that he would not rather recommend the employment of all proper and
honorable precautions for the preservation of life. Indeed, in H. E.
IV. 15, he speaks with evident approval of the prudent course pursued
by Polycarp in preserving his life so long as he could without
violating his Christian profession, and with manifest disapproval of
the rash act of the Phrygian Quintus, who presumptuously courted
martyrdom, only to fail when the test itself came. Pamphilus also
possessed too much sound Christian sense to advocate any such
fanaticism, or to practice it himself, as is plain enough from the fact
that he was not arrested until the fifth year of the persecution. This
unhealthy temper of mind in the midst of persecution was indeed almost
universally condemned by the wisest men of the Church, and yet the
boldness and the very rashness of those who thus voluntarily and
needlessly threw their lives away excited widespread admiration and too
often a degree of commendation which served only to promote a wider
growth of the same unhealthy sentiment.

In the fifth year of the persecution Pamphilus was arrested and thrown
into prison, where he remained for two years, when he finally, in the
seventh year of the persecution, suffered martyrdom with eleven others,
some of whom were his disciples and members of his own household. (Pal.
Mart. Cureton's ed. p. 36 sq.; H. E. App. chap. 11.) During the two
years of Pamphilus' imprisonment Eusebius spent a great deal of time
with him, and the two together composed five books of an Apology for
Origen, to which Eusebius afterward added a sixth (see below, p. 36).
Danz (p. 37) assumes that Eusebius was imprisoned with Pamphilus, which
is not an unnatural supposition when we consider how much they must
have been together to compose the Apology as they did. There is,
however, no other evidence that he was thus imprisoned, and in the face
of Eusebius' own silence it is safer perhaps to assume (with most
historians) that he simply visited Pamphilus in his prison. How it
happened that Pamphilus and so many of his followers were imprisoned
and martyred, while Eusebius escaped, we cannot tell. In his Martyrs of
Palestine, chap. 11, he states that Pamphilus was the only one of the
company of twelve martyrs that was a presbyter of the Caesarean church;
and from the fact that he nowhere mentions the martyrdom of others of
the presbyters, we may conclude that they all escaped. It is not
surprising, therefore, that Eusebius should have done the same.
Nevertheless, it is somewhat difficult to understand how he could come
and go so frequently without being arrested and condemned to a like
fate with the others. It is possible that he possessed friends among
the authorities whose influence procured his safety. This supposition
finds some support in the fact that he had made the acquaintance of
Constantine (the Greek in Vita Const. I. 19 has zgnomen, which implies,
as Danz remarks, that he not only saw, but that he became acquainted
with Constantine) some years before in Caesarea. He could hardly have
made his acquaintance unless he had some friend among the high
officials of the city. Influential family connections may account in
part also for the position of prominence which he later acquired at the
imperial court of Constantine. If he had friends in authority in
Caesarea during the persecution his exemption from arrest is
satisfactorily accounted for. It has been supposed by some that
Eusebius denied the faith during the terrible persecution, or that he
committed some other questionable and compromising act of concession,
and thus escaped martyrdom. In support of this is urged the fact that
in 335, at the council of Tyre, Potamo, bishop of Heraclea, in Egypt,
addressed Eusebius in the following words: "Dost thou sit as judge, O
Eusebius; and is Athanasius, innocent as he is, judged by thee? Who can
bear such things? Pray tell me, wast thou not with me in prison during
the persecution? And I lost an eye in behalf of the truth, but thou
appearest to have received no bodily injury, neither hast thou suffered
martyrdom, but thou hast remained alive with no mutilation. How wast
thou released from prison unless thou didst promise those that put upon
us the pressure of persecution to do that which is unlawful, or didst
actually do it?" Eusebius, it seems, did not deny the charge, but
simply rose in anger and dismissed the council with the words, "If ye
come hither and make such accusations against us, then do your accusers
speak the truth. For if ye tyrannize here, much more do ye in your own
country" (Epiphan. Haer. LXVIII. 8). It must be noticed, however, that
Potamo does not directly charge Eusebius with dishonorable conduct, he
simply conjectures that he must have acted dishonorably in order to
escape punishment; as if every one who was imprisoned with Potamo must
have suffered as he did! As Stroth suggests, it is quite possible that
his peculiarly excitable and violent temperament was one of the causes
of his own loss. He evidently in any case had no knowledge of unworthy
conduct on Eusebius' part, nor had any one else so far as we can judge.
For in that age of bitter controversy, when men's characters were drawn
by their opponents in the blackest lines, Eusebius must have suffered
at the hands of the Athanasian party if it had been known that he had
acted a cowardly part in the persecution. Athanasius himself refers to
this incident (Contra Arian. VIII. 1), but he only says that Eusebius
was "accused of sacrificing," he does not venture to affirm that he did
sacrifice; and thus it is evident that he knew nothing of such an act.
Moreover, he never calls Eusebius "the sacrificer," as he does
Asterius, and as he would have been sure to do had he possessed
evidence which warranted him in making the accusation (cf. Lightfoot,
p. 311). Still further, Eusebius' subsequent election to the episcopate
of Caesarea, where his character and his conduct during the persecution
must have been well known, and his appointment in later life to the
important see of Antioch, forbid the supposition that he had ever acted
a cowardly part in time of persecution. And finally, it is
psychologically impossible that Eusebius could have written works so
full of comfort for, and sympathy with, the suffering confessors, and
could have spoken so openly and in such strong terms of condemnation of
the numerous defections that occurred during the persecution, if he was
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, supposing him to have been imprisoned with Potamo, it may
be, as Lightfoot suggests, that the close of the persecution brought
him his release as it did so many others. For 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. We must
in any case vindicate Eusebius from the unfounded charge of cowardice
and apostasy; and we ask, 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 the latter places (H. E. VIII. 7, 9) cannot
be determined with exactness. They are described in connection with
what seem to be the earlier events of the persecution, and yet it is by
no means certain that chronological order has been 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), and hence if Eusebius was
imprisoned with Potamo during his visit to Egypt, as seems most
probable, there would be some reason for assigning that visit to the
later years of the persecution. In confirmation of this might be urged
the improbability that he would leave Caesarea while Pamphilus was
still alive, either before or after the latter's imprisonment, and
still further his own statement in H. E. 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.
________________________________________________________________

S:4. Eusebius' Accession to the Bishopric of Caesarea.

Not long after the close of the persecution, Eusebius became bishop of
Caesarea in Palestine, his own home, and held the position until his
death. The exact date of his accession cannot be ascertained, indeed 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 in terms of praise in H.
E. VII. 32. Some writers have interpolated a bishop Agricolaus between
Agapius and Eusebius (see e.g. Tillemont, Hist. Eccles. VII. 42), on
the ground that his name appears in one of the lists of those present
at the Council of Ancyra (c. 314), as bishop of Caesarea in Palestine
(see Labbei et Cossartii Conc. I. 1475). But, as Hefele shows
(Conciliengesch. I. 220), this list is of late date and not to be
relied upon. On the other hand, as Lightfoot points out, in the
Libellus Synodicus (Conc. I. 1480), where Agricolaus is said to have
been present at the Council of Ancyra, he is called bishop of Caesarea
in Cappadocia; and this statement is confirmed by a Syriac list given
in Cowper's Miscellanies, p. 41. Though perhaps no great reliance is to
be placed upon the correctness of any of these lists, the last two may
at any rate be set over against the first, and we may conclude that
there exists no ground for assuming that Agapius, who is the last
Caesarean bishop mentioned by Eusebius, was not the latter's immediate
predecessor. At what time Agapius died we do not know. That he suffered
martyrdom is hardly likely, in view of Eusebius' silence on the
subject. It would seem more likely that he outlived the persecution.
However that may be, Eusebius was already bishop at the time of the
dedication of a new and elegant Church at Tyre under the direction of
his friend Paulinus, bishop of that city. Upon this occasion he
delivered an address of considerable length, which he has inserted in
his Ecclesiastical History, Bk. X. chap. 4. He does not name himself as
its author, but the way in which he introduces it, and the very fact
that he records the whole speech without giving the name of the man who
delivered it, make its origin perfectly plain. Moreover, the last
sentence of the preceding chapter makes it evident that the speaker was
a bishop: "Every one of the rulers (archonton) present delivered
panegyric discourses." The date of the dedication of this church is a
matter of dispute, though it is commonly put in the year 315. It is
plain from Eusebius' speech that it was uttered before Licinius had
begun to persecute the Christians, and also, as Goerres remarks, at a
time when Constantine and Licinius were at least outwardly at peace
with each other. In the year 314 the two emperors went to war, and
consequently, if the persecution of Licinius began soon after that
event, as it is commonly supposed to have done, the address must have
been delivered before hostilities opened; that is, at least as early as
314, and this is the year in which Goerres places it (Kritische
Untersuchungen ueber die licinianische Christenverfolgung, p. 8). But
if Goerres' date (319 a.d.) for the commencement of the persecution be
accepted (and though he can hardly be said to have proved it, he has
urged some strong grounds in support of it), then the address may have
been delivered at almost any time between 315 and 319, for, as Goerres
himself shows, Licinius and Constantine were outwardly at peace during
the greater part of that time (ib. p. 14, sq.). There is nothing in the
speech itself which prevents this later date, nor is it intrinsically
improbable that the great basilica reached completion only in 315 or
later. In fact, it must be admitted that Eusebius may have become
bishop at any time between about 311 and 318.

The persecution of Licinius, which continued until his defeat by
Constantine, in 323, was but local, and seems never to have been very
severe. Indeed, it did not bear the character of a bloody persecution,
though a few bishops appear to have met their death on one ground or
another. Palestine and Egypt seem not to have suffered to any great
extent (see Goerres, ib. p. 32 sq.).
________________________________________________________________

S:5. The Outbreak of the Arian Controversy. The Attitude of Eusebius.

About the year 318, while Alexander was bishop of Alexandria, the Arian
controversy broke out in that city, and the whole Eastern Church was
soon involved in the strife. We cannot enter here into a discussion of
Arius' views; but in order to understand the rapidity with which the
Arian party grew, and the strong hold which it possessed from the very
start in Syria and Asia Minor, we must remember that Arius was not
himself the author of that system which we know as Arianism, but that
he learned the essentials of it from his instructor Lucian. The latter
was one of the most learned men of his age in the Oriental Church, and
founded an exegetico-theological school in Antioch, which for a number
of years stood outside of the communion of the orthodox Church in that
city, but shortly before the martyrdom of Lucian himself (which took
place in 311 or 312) made its peace with the Church, and was recognized
by it. He was held in the highest reverence by his disciples, and
exerted a great influence over them even after his death. Among them
were such men as Arius, Eusebius of Nicomedia, Asterius, and others who
were afterward known as staunch Arianists. According to Harnack the
chief points in the system of Lucian and his disciples were the
creation of the Son, the denial of his co-eternity with the Father, and
his immutability acquired by persistent progress and steadfastness. His
doctrine, which differed from that of Paul of Samosata chiefly in the
fact that it was not a man but a created heavenly being who became
"Lord," was evidently the result of a combination of the teaching of
Paul and of Origen. It will be seen that we have here, at least in
germ, all the essential elements of Arianism proper: the creation of
the Son out of nothing, and consequently the conclusion that there was
a time when he was not; the distinction of his essence from that of the
Father, but at the same time the emphasis upon the fact that he "was
not created as the other creatures," and is therefore to be sharply
distinguished from them. There was little for Arius to do but to
combine the elements given by Lucian in a more complete and
well-ordered system, and then to bring that system forward clearly and
publicly, and endeavor to make it the faith of the Church at large. His
christology was essentially opposed to the Alexandrian, and it was
natural that he should soon come into conflict with that church, of
which he was a presbyter (upon Lucian's teaching and its relation to
Arianism, see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte, II. p. 183 sq.).

Socrates (H. E. I. 5 sq.), Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) and Theodoret (H. E.
I. 2 sq.), all of whom give accounts of the rise of Arianism, differ as
to the immediate occasion of the controversy, but agree that Arius was
excommunicated by a council convened at Alexandria, and that both he
and the bishop Alexander sent letters to other churches, the latter
defending his own course, the former complaining of his harsh
treatment, and endeavoring to secure adherents to his doctrine.
Eusebius of Nicomedia at once became his firm supporter, and was one of
the leading figures on the Arian side throughout the entire
controversy. His influential position as bishop of Nicomedia, the
imperial residence, and later of Constantinople, was of great advantage
to the Arian cause, especially toward the close of Constantine's reign.
From a letter addressed by this Eusebius to Paulinus of Tyre
(Theodoret, H. E. I. 6) we learn that Eusebius of Caesarea was quite
zealous in behalf of the Arian cause. The exact date of the letter we
do not know, but it must have been written at an early stage of the
controversy. Arius himself, in an epistle addressed to Eusebius of
Nicomedia (Theodoret, H. E. I. 5), claims Eusebius of Caesarea among
others as accepting at least one of his fundamental doctrines ("And
since Eusebius, your brother in Caesarea, and Theodotus, and Paulinus,
and Athanasius, and Gregory, and AEtius, and all the bishops of the
East say that God existed before the Son, they have been condemned,"
etc.). More than this, Sozomen (H. E. I. 15) informs us that Eusebius
of Caesarea and two other bishops, having been appealed to by Arius for
"permission for himself and his adherents, as he had already attained
the rank of presbyter, to form the people who were with them into a
church," concurred with others "who were assembled in Palestine," in
granting the petition of Arius, and permitting him to assemble the
people as before; but they "enjoined submission to Alexander, and
commanded Arius to strive incessantly to be restored to peace and
communion with him." The addition of the last sentence is noticeable,
as showing that they did not care to support a presbyter in open and
persistent rebellion against his bishop. A fragment of a letter written
by our Eusebius to Alexander is still extant, and is preserved in the
proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea, Act. VI. Tom. V. (Labbei
et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). In this epistle Eusebius strongly
remonstrates with Alexander for having misrepresented the views of
Arius. Still further, in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople,
Alexander of Alexandria (Theodoret, H. E. I. 4) complains of three
Syrian bishops "who side with them [i.e. the Arians] and excite them to
plunge deeper and deeper into iniquity." The reference here is commonly
supposed to be to Eusebius of Caesarea, and his two friends Paulinus of
Tyre and Theodotus of Laodicea, who are known to have shown favor to
Arius. It is probable, though not certain, that our Eusebius is one of
the persons meant. Finally, many of the Fathers (above all Jerome and
Photius), and in addition to them the Second Council of Nicaea,
directly accuse Eusebius of holding the Arian heresy, as may be seen by
examining the testimonies quoted below on p. 67 sq. In agreement with
these early Fathers, many modern historians have attacked Eusebius with
great severity, and have endeavored to show that the opinion that he
was an Arian is supported by his own writings. Among those who have
judged him most harshly are Baronius (ad ann. 340, c. 38 sq.), Petavius
(Dogm. Theol. de Trin. I. c. 11 sq.), Scaliger (In Elencho Trihaeresii,
c. 27, and De emendatione temporum, Bk. VI. c. 1), Mosheim
(Ecclesiastical History, Murdock's translation, I. p. 287 sq.),
Montfaucon (Praelim. in Comment. ad Psalm. c. VI.), and Tillemont (H.
E. VII. p. 67 sq. 2d ed.).

On the other hand, as may be seen from the testimonies in Eusebius'
favor, quoted below on p. 57 sq., 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; among others
by Valesius in his Life of Eusebius, by Bull (Def. Fid. Nic. II. 9. 20,
III. 9. 3, 11), Cave (Lives of the Fathers, II. p. 135 sq.), Fabricius
(Bibl. Graec. VI. p. 32 sq.), Dupin (Bibl. Eccles. II. p. 7 sq.), and
most fully and carefully by Lee in his prolegomena to his edition of
Eusebius' Theophania, p. xxiv. sq. 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 with 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 wrested in such a way as to produce a
suspicion of possible Arianistic tendencies, for there are such
expressions 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 of the
moderns, that Eusebius was and continued through life a genuine Arian,
will not do in the face of the facts that contemporary and later
Fathers were divided as to his orthodoxy, that he was honored highly by
the Church of subsequent centuries, except at certain periods, and was
even canonized (see Lightfoot's article, p. 348), that he solemnly
signed the Nicene Creed, which contained an express condemnation of the
distinctive doctrines of Arius, and finally that 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 Nicaea, 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, and which were 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 Contra Marcel., his De Eccl. Theol., his
Thephania (which was written after the Council of Nicaea, and not, as
Lee supposes, before it), and other later works, to be thoroughly
orthodox and to contain nothing which a trinitarian might not have
written. In his Hist. Eccl., Praeparatio Evang., Demonstratio Evang.,
and other earlier works, although we find some expressions employed
which it would not have been possible for an orthodox trinitarian to
use after the Council of Nicaea, at least without careful limitation to
guard against misapprehension, there is nothing even in these works
which requires us to believe that he accepted the doctrines of Arius'
predecessor, Lucian of Antioch; that is, there is nothing distinctly
and positively Arianistic about them, although there are occasional
expressions which might lead the reader to expect that the writer would
become an Arian if he ever learned of Arius' doctrines. But if there is
seen to be a lack of emphasis upon the divinity of the Son, or rather a
lack of clearness in the conception of the nature of that divinity, it
must be remembered that there was at this time no especial reason for
emphasizing and defining it, but there was on the contrary very good
reason for laying particular stress upon the subordination of the Son
over against Sabellianism, which was so widely prevalent during the
third century, and which was exerting an influence even over many
orthodox theologians who did not consciously accept Sabellianistic
tenets. That Eusebius was a decided subordinationist must be plain to
every one that reads his works with care, especially his earlier ones.
It would be surprising if he had not been, for he was born at a time
when Sabellianism (monarchianism) was felt to be the greatest danger to
which orthodox christology was exposed, and he was trained under the
influence of the followers of Origen, who had made it one of his chief
aims to emphasize the subordination of the Son over against that very
monarchianism. [1] The same subordinationism may be clearly seen in the
writings of Dionysius of Alexandria and of Gregory Thaumaturgus, two of
Origen's greatest disciples. It must not be forgotten that at the
beginning of the fourth century the problem of how to preserve the
Godhood of Christ and at the same time his subordination to the Father
(in opposition to the monarchianists) had not been solved. Eusebius in
his earlier writings shows that he holds both (he cannot be convicted
of denying Christ's divinity), but that he is as far from a solution of
the problem, and is just as uncertain in regard to the exact relation
of Father and Son, as Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Dionysius, and
Gregory Thaumaturgus were; is just as inconsistent in his modes of
expression as they, and yet no more so (see Harnack's Dogmengeschichte,
I. pp. 628 sq. and 634 sq., for an exposition of the opinions of these
other Fathers on the subject). Eusebius, with the same immature and
undeveloped views which were held all through the third century, wrote
those earlier works which have given rise to so much dispute between
those who accuse him of Arianism and those who defend him against the
charge. When he wrote them he was neither Arian nor Athanasian, and for
that reason passages may be found in them which if written after the
Council of Nicaea might prove him an Arian, and other passages which
might as truly prove him an Athanasian, just as in the writings of
Origen were found by both parties passages to support their views, and
in Gregory Thaumaturgus passages apparently teaching Arianism, and
others teaching its opposite, Sabellianism (see Harnack, ib. p. 646).

Let us suppose now that Eusebius, holding fast to the divinity of
Christ, and yet convinced just as firmly of his subordination to the
Father, becomes acquainted through Arius, or other like-minded
disciples of Lucian of Antioch, with a doctrine which seems to preserve
the Godhood, while at the same time emphasizing strongly the
subordination of the Son, and which formulates the relation of Father
and Son in a clear and rational manner. That he should accept such a
doctrine eagerly is just what we should expect, and just what we find
him doing. In his epistles to Alexander and Euphration, he shows
himself an Arian, and Arius and his followers were quite right in
claiming him as a supporter. There is that in the epistles which is to
be found nowhere in his previous writings, and which distinctly
separates him from the orthodox party. How then are we to explain the
fact that a few years later he signed the Nicene creed and
anathematized the doctrines of Arius? Before we can understand his
conduct, it is necessary to examine carefully the two epistles in
question. Such an examination will show us that what Eusebius is
defending in them is not genuine Arianism. He evidently thinks that it
is, evidently supposes that he and Arius are in complete agreement upon
the subjects under discussion; but he is mistaken. The extant fragments
of the two epistles are given below on p. 70. It will be seen that
Eusebius in them defends the Arian doctrine that there was a time when
the Son of God was not. It will be seen also that he finds fault with
Alexander for representing the Arians as teaching that the "Son of God
was made out of nothing, like all creatures," and contends that Arius
teaches that the Son of God was begotten, and that he was not produced
like all creatures. We know that the Arians very commonly applied the
word "begotten" to Christ, using it in such cases as synonymous with
"created," and thus not implying, as the Athanasians did when they used
the word, that he was of one substance with the Father (compare, for
instance, the explanation of the meaning of the term given by Eusebius
of Nicomedia in his epistle to Paulinus; Theod. H. E. I. 6). It is
evident that the use of this word had deceived our Eusebius, and that
he was led by it to think that they taught that the Son was of the
Father in a peculiar sense, and did in reality partake in some way of
essential Godhood. And indeed it is not at all surprising that the
words of Arius, in his epistle to Alexander of Alexandria (see Athan.
Ep. de conc. Arim. et Seleuc., chap. II. S:3; Oxford edition of
Athanasius' Tracts against Arianism, p. 97), quoted by Eusebius in his
epistle to the same Alexander, should give Eusebius that impression.
The words are as follows: "The God of the law, and of the prophets, and
of the New Testament before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son,
through whom also He made the ages and the universe. And He begat him
not in appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will,
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one
of the creatures." Arius' use here of the word "begat," and his
qualification of the word "creature" by the adjective "perfect," and by
the statement that he was "not as one of the creatures" naturally
tended to make Eusebius think that Arius acknowledged a real divinity
of the Son, and that appeared to him to be all that was necessary.
Meanwhile Alexander in his epistle to Alexander of Constantinople
(Theod. H. E. I. 4) had, as Eusebius says, misstated Arius' opinion, or
at least had attributed to him the belief that Christ was "made like
all other men that have ever been born," whereas Arius expressly
disclaims such a belief. Alexander undoubtedly thought that that was
the legitimate result to which the other views of Arius must lead; but
Eusebius did not think so, and felt himself called upon to remonstrate
with Alexander for what seemed to him the latter's unfairness in the
matter.

When we examine the Caesarean creed [2] which Eusebius presented to the
Council as a fair statement of his belief, we find nothing in it
inconsistent with the acceptance of the kind of Arianism which he
defends in his epistle to Alexander, and which he evidently supposed to
be practically the Arianism of Arius himself. In his epistle to
Euphration, however, Eusebius seems at first glance to go further and
to give up the real divinity of the Son. His words are, "Since the Son
is himself God, but not true God." But we have no right to interpret
these words, torn as they are from the context which might make their
meaning perfectly plain, without due regard to Eusebius' belief
expressed elsewhere in this epistle, and in his epistle to Alexander
which was evidently written about the same time. In the epistle to
Alexander he clearly reveals a belief in the real divinity of the Son,
while in the other fragment of his epistle to Euphration he dwells upon
the subordination of the Son and approves the Arian opinion, which he
had defended also in the other epistle, that the "Father was before the
Son." The expression, "not true God" (a very common Arian expression;
see Athan. Orat. c. Arian. I. 6) seems therefore to have been used by
Eusebius to express a belief, not that the Son did not possess real
divinity (as the genuine Arians used it), but that he was not equal to
the Father, who, to Eusebius' thought, was "true God." He indeed
expressly calls the Son theos, which shows--when the sense in which he
elsewhere uses the word is considered--that he certainly did believe
him to partake of Godhood, though, in some mysterious way, in a smaller
degree, or in a less complete manner than the Father. That Eusebius
misunderstood Arius, and did not perceive that he actually denied all
real deity to the Son, was due doubtless in part to his lack of
theological insight (Eusebius was never a great theologian), in part to
his habitual dread of Sabellianism (of which Arius had accused
Alexander, and toward which Eusebius evidently thought that the latter
was tending), which led him to look with great favor upon the
pronounced subordinationism of Arius, and thus to overlook the
dangerous extreme to which Arius carried that subordinationism.

We are now, the writer hopes, prepared to admit that Eusebius, after
the breaking out of the Arian controversy, became an Arian, as he
understood Arianism, and supported that party with considerable vigor;
and that not as a result of mere personal friendship, but of
theological conviction. At the same time, he was then, as always, a
peace-loving man, and while lending Arius his approval and support, he
united with other Palestinian bishops in enjoining upon him submission
to his bishop (Sozomen, H. E. I. 15). As an Arian, then, and yet
possessed with the desire of securing, if it were possible, peace and
harmony between the two factions, Eusebius appeared at the Council of
Nicaea, and there signed a creed containing Athanasian doctrine and
anathematizing the chief tenets of Arius. How are we to explain his
conduct? We shall, perhaps, do best to let him explain his own conduct.
In his letter to the church of Caesarea (preserved by Socrates, H. E.
I. 8, as well as by other authors), he writes as follows:--

"What was transacted concerning ecclesiastical faith at the Great
Council assembled at Nicaea you have probably learned, Beloved, from
other sources, rumour being wont to precede the accurate account of
what is doing. But lest in such reports the circumstances of the case
have been misrepresented, we have been obliged to transmit to you,
first, the formula of faith presented by ourselves; and next, the
second, which the Fathers put forth with some additions to our words.
Our own paper, then, which was read in the presence of our most pious
Emperor, and declared to be good and unexceptionable, ran thus:--

"`As we have received from the Bishops who preceded us, and in our
first catechisings, and when we received the Holy Laver, and as we have
learned from the divine Scriptures, and as we believed and taught in
the presbytery, and in the Episcopate itself, so believing also at the
time present, we report to you our faith, and it is this:--

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, the Maker of all things
visible and invisible. And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Word of God,
God from God, Light from Light, Life from Life, Son Only-begotten,
first-born of every creature, before all the ages, begotten from the
Father, by whom also all things were made; who for our salvation was
made flesh, and lived among men, and suffered, and rose again the third
day, and ascended to the Father, and will come again in glory to judge
quick and dead. And we believe also in One Holy Ghost; believing each
of These to be and to exist, the Father truly Father, and the Son truly
Son, and the Holy Ghost truly Holy Ghost, as also our Lord, sending
forth His disciples for the preaching, said, Go, teach all nations,
baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost. Concerning whom we confidently affirm that so we hold, and
so we think, and so we have held aforetime, and we maintain this faith
unto the death, anathematizing every godless heresy. That this we have
ever thought from our heart and soul, from the time we recollect
ourselves, and now think and say in truth, before God Almighty and our
Lord Jesus Christ do we witness, being able by proofs to show and to
convince you, that, even in times past, such has been our belief and
preaching.'

"On this faith being publicly put forth by us, no room for
contradiction appeared; but our most pious Emperor, before any one
else, testified that it comprised most orthodox statements. He
confessed, moreover, that such were his own sentiments; and he advised
all present to agree to it, and to subscribe its articles and to assent
to them, with the insertion of the single word, `One in substance'
(homoousios), which, moreover, he interpreted as not in the sense of
the affections of bodies, nor as if the Son subsisted from the Father,
in the way of division, or any severance; for that the immaterial and
intellectual and incorporeal nature could not be the subject of any
corporeal affection, but that it became us to conceive of such things
in a divine and ineffable manner. And such were the theological remarks
of our most wise and most religious Emperor; but they, with a view to
the addition of `One in substance,' drew up the following formula:--

"`We believe in One God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things
visible and invisible:-- And in One Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God,
begotten of the Father, Only-begotten, that is, from the Substance of
the Father; God from God, Light from Light, very God from very God,
begotten, not made, One in substance with the Father, by whom all
things were made, both things in heaven and things in earth; who for us
men and for our salvation came down and was made flesh, was made man,
suffered, and rose again the third day, ascended into heaven, and
cometh to judge quick and dead.

"`And in the Holy Ghost. But those who say, "Once He was not," and
"Before His generation He was not," and "He came to be from nothing,"
or those who pretend that the Son of God is "Of other subsistence or
substance," or "created," or "alterable," or "mutable," the Catholic
Church anathematizes.'

"On their dictating this formula, we did not let it pass without
inquiry in what sense they introduced `of the substance of the Father,'
and `one in substance with the Father.' Accordingly questions and
explanations took place, and the meaning of the words underwent the
scrutiny of reason. And they professed that the phrase `of the
substance' was indicative of the Son's being indeed from the Father,
yet without being as if a part of Him. And with this understanding we
thought good to assent to the sense of such religious doctrine,
teaching, as it did, that the Son was from the Father, not, however, a
part of His substance. On this account we assented to the sense
ourselves, without declining even the term `One in substance,' peace
being the object which we set before us, and steadfastness in the
orthodox view. In the same way we also admitted `begotten, not made';
since the Council alleged that `made' was an appellative common to the
other creatures which came to be through the Son, to whom the Son had
no likeness. Wherefore, said they, He was not a work resembling the
things which through Him came to be, but was of a substance which is
too high for the level of any work, and which the Divine oracles teach
to have been generated from the Father, the mode of generation being
inscrutable and incalculable to every generated nature. And so, too, on
examination there are grounds for saying that the Son is `one in
substance' with the Father; not in the way of bodies, nor like mortal
beings, for He is not such by division of substance, or by severance;
no, nor by any affection, or alteration, or changing of the Father's
substance and power (since from all such the ingenerate nature of the
Father is alien), but because `one in substance with the Father'
suggests that the Son of God bears no resemblance to the generated
creatures, but that to His Father alone who begat Him is He in every
way assimilated, and that He is not of any other subsistence and
substance, but from the Father.

"To which term also, thus interpreted, it appeared well to assent;
since we were aware that, even among the ancients, some learned and
illustrious Bishops and writers have used the term `one in substance'
in their theological teaching concerning the Father and Son. So much,
then, be said concerning the faith which was published; to which all of
us assented, not without inquiry, but according to the specified
senses, mentioned before the most religious Emperor himself, and
justified by the fore-mentioned considerations. And as to the
anathematism published by them at the end of the Faith, it did not pain
us, because it forbade to use words not in Scripture, from which almost
all the confusion and disorder of the Church have come. Since, then, no
divinely inspired Scripture has used the phrases, `out of nothing' and
`once He was not,' and the rest which follow, there appeared no ground
for using or teaching them; to which also we assented as a good
decision, since it had not been our custom hitherto to use these terms.
Moreover, to anathematize `Before His generation He was not' did not
seem preposterous, in that it is confessed by all that the Son of God
was before the generation according to the flesh. Nay, our most
religious Emperor did at the time prove, in a speech, that He was in
being even according to His divine generation which is before all ages,
since even before he was generated in energy, He was in virtue with the
Father ingenerately, the Father being always Father, as King always and
Saviour always, having all things in virtue, and being always in the
same respects and in the same way. This we have been forced to transmit
to you, Beloved, as making clear to you the deliberation of our inquiry
and assent, and how reasonably we resisted even to the last minute, as
long as we were offended at statements which differed from our own, but
received without contention what no longer pained us, as soon as, on a
candid examination of the sense of the words, they appeared to us to
coincide with what we ourselves have professed in the faith which we
have already published." [3]

It will be seen that while the expressions "of the substance of the
Father," "begotten not made," and "One in substance," or
"consubstantial with the Father," are all explicitly anti-Arianistic,
yet none of them contradicts the doctrines held by Eusebius before the
Council, so far as we can learn them from his epistles to Alexander and
Euphration and from the Caesarean creed. His own explanation of those
expressions, which it is to be observed was the explanation given by
the Council itself, and which therefore he was fully warranted in
accepting,--even though it may not have been so rigid as to satisfy an
Athanasius,--shows us how this is. He had believed before that the Son
partook of the Godhood in very truth, that He was "begotten," and
therefore "not made," if "made" implied something different from
"begotten," as the Nicene Fathers held that it did; and he had believed
before that the "Son of God has no resemblance to created' things, but
is in every respect like the Father only who begat him, and that He is
of no other substance or essence than the Father," and therefore if
that was what the word "Consubstantial" (homoousios) meant he could not
do otherwise than accept that too.

It is clear that the dread of Sabellianism was still before the eyes of
Eusebius, and was the cause of his hesitation in assenting to the
various changes, especially to the use of the word homoousios, which
had been a Sabellian word and had been rejected on that account by the
Synod of Antioch, at which Paul of Samosata had been condemned some
sixty years before.

It still remains to explain Eusebius' sanction of the anathemas
attached to the creed which expressly condemn at least one of the
beliefs which he had himself formerly held, viz.: that the "Father was
before the Son," or as he puts it elsewhere, that "He who is begat him
who was not." The knot might of course be simply cut by supposing an
act of hypocrisy on his part, but the writer is convinced that such a
conclusion does violence to all that we know of Eusebius and of his
subsequent treatment of the questions involved in this discussion. It
is quite possible to suppose that a real change of opinion on his part
took place during the sessions of the Council. Indeed when we realize
how imperfect and incorrect a conception of Arianism he had before the
Council began, and how clearly its true bearing was there brought out
by its enemies, we can see that he could not do otherwise than change;
that he must have become either an out-and-out Arian, or an opponent of
Arianism as he did. When he learned, and learned for the first time,
that Arianism meant the denial of all essential divinity to Christ, and
when he saw that it involved the ascription of mutability and of other
finite attributes to him, he must either change entirely his views on
those points or he must leave the Arian party. To him who with all his
subordinationism had laid in all his writings so much stress on the
divinity of the Word (even though he had not realized exactly what that
divinity involved) it would have been a revolution in his Christian
life and faith to have admitted what he now learned that Arianism
involved. Sabellianism had been his dread, but now this new fear, which
had aroused so large a portion of the Church, seized him too, and he
felt that stand must be made against this too great separation of
Father and Son, which was leading to dangerous results. Under the
pressure of this fear it is not surprising that he should become
convinced that the Arian formula--"there was a time when the Son was
not"--involved serious consequences, and that Alexander and his
followers should have succeeded in pointing out to him its untruth,
because it led necessarily to a false conclusion. It is not surprising,
moreover, that they should have succeeded in explaining to him at least
partially their belief, which, as his epistle to Alexander shows, had
before been absolutely incomprehensible, that the Son was generated
from all eternity, and that therefore the Father did not exist before
him in a temporal sense.

He says toward the close of his epistle to the Caesarean church that he
had not been accustomed to use such expressions as "There was a time
when he was not," "He came to be from nothing," etc. And there is no
reason to doubt that he speaks the truth. Even in his epistles to
Alexander and Euphration he does not use those phrases (though he does
defend the doctrine taught by the first of them), nor does Arius
himself, in the epistle to Alexander upon which Eusebius apparently
based his knowledge of the system, use those expressions, although he
too teaches the same doctrine. The fact is that in that epistle Arius
studiously avoids such favorite Arian phrases as might emphasize the
differences between himself and Alexander, and Eusebius seems to have
avoided them for the same reason. We conclude then that Eusebius was
not an Arian (nor an adherent of Lucian) before 318, that soon after
that date he became an Arian in the sense in which he understood
Arianism, but that during the Council of Nicaea he ceased to be one in
any sense. His writings in later years confirm the course of doctrinal
development which we have supposed went on in his mind. He never again
defends Arian doctrines in his works, and yet he never becomes an
Athanasian in his emphasis upon the homoousion. In fact he represents a
mild orthodoxy, which is always orthodox--when measured by the Nicene
creed as interpreted by the Nicene Council--and yet is always mild.
Moreover, he never acquired an affection for the word homoousios, which
to his mind was bound up with too many evil associations ever to have a
pleasant sound to him. He therefore studiously avoided it in his own
writings, although clearly showing that he believed fully in what the
Nicene Council had explained it to mean. It must be remembered that
during many years of his later life he was engaged in controversy with
Marcellus, a thorough-going Sabellian, who had been at the time of the
Council one of the strongest of Athanasius' colleagues. In his contest
with him it was again anti-Sabellianistic polemics which absorbed him
and increased his distaste for homoousion and minimized his emphasis
upon the distinctively anti-Arianistic doctrines formulated at Nicaea.
For any except the very wisest minds it was a matter of enormous
difficulty to steer between the two extremes in those times of strife;
and while combating Sabellianism not to fall into Arianism, and while
combating the latter not to be engulfed in the former. That Eusebius
under the constant pressure of the one fell into the other at one time,
and was in occasional danger of falling into it again in later years,
can hardly be cited as an evidence either of wrong heart or of weak
head. An Athanasius he was not, but neither was he an unsteady
weather-cock, or an hypocritical time-server.
________________________________________________________________

[1] It is interesting to notice that the creed of the Caesarean church
which Eusebius presented at the Council of Nice contains a clause which
certainly looks as if it had been composed in opposition to the
familiar formula of the Sabellians: "The same one is the Father, the
same one the Son, the same one the Holy Spirit" (ton auton einai
patera, ton auton einai hui& 232;n, ton auton einai hagion pneuma; see
Epiphan. Haer. LXII. 1; and compare the statement made in the same
section, that the Sabellians taught that God acts in three forms: in
the form of the Father, as creator and lawgiver; in the form of the
Son, as redeemer; and in the form of the Spirit, as life-giver, etc.).
The clause of the Caesarean creed referred to runs as follows: "That
the Father is truly Father, the Son truly Son, and the Holy Spirit
truly Holy Spirit" (patera alethos patera, kai hui& 232;n alethos hui&
232;n, kai pneuma hagion alethos hagion). It is significant that in the
revised creed adopted by the Council these words are omitted, evidently
because the occasion for them no longer existed, since not Sabellianism
but Arianism was the heresy combated; and because, more than that, the
use of them would but weaken the emphasis which the Council wished to
put upon the essential divinity of all three persons.

[2] For a translation of the creed see below, p. 16, where it is given
as a part of Eusebius' epistle to the Church of Caesarea.

[3] The translation is that of Newman, as given in the Oxford edition
of Athanasius' Select Treatises against Arianism, p. 59 sq.
________________________________________________________________

S:6. The Council of Nicaea.

At the Council of Nicaea, which met pursuant to an imperial summons in
the year 325 A.D., Eusebius played a very prominent part. A description
of the opening scenes of the Council is given in his Vita Constantini,
III. 10 sq. After the Emperor had entered in pomp and had taken his
seat, a bishop who sat next to him upon his right arose and delivered
in his honor the opening oration, to which the Emperor replied in a
brief Latin address. There can be no doubt that this bishop was our
Eusebius. Sozomen (H. E. I. 19) states it directly; and Eusebius,
although he does not name the speaker, yet refers to him, as he had
referred to the orator at the dedication of Paulinus' church at Tyre,
in such a way as to make it clear that it was himself; and moreover in
his Vita Constantini, I. 1, he mentions the fact that he had in the
midst of an assembly of the servants of God addressed an oration to the
Emperor on the occasion of the latter's vicennalia, i.e. in 325 a.d. On
the other hand, however, Theodoret (H. E. I. 7) states that this
opening oration was delivered by Eustathius, bishop of Antioch; while
Theodore of Mopsuestia and Philostorgius (according to Nicetas
Choniates, Thes. de orthod. fid. V. 7) assign it to Alexander of
Alexandria. As Lightfoot suggests, it is possible to explain the
discrepancy in the reports by supposing that Eustathius and Alexander,
the two great patriarchs, first addressed a few words to the Emperor
and that then Eusebius delivered the regular oration. This supposition
is not at all unlikely, for it would be quite proper for the two
highest ecclesiastics present to welcome the Emperor formally in behalf
of the assembled prelates, before the regular oration was delivered by
Eusebius. At the same time, the supposition that one or the other of
the two great patriarchs must have delivered the opening address was
such a natural one that it may have been adopted by Theodoret and the
other writers referred to without any historical basis. It is in any
case certain that the regular oration was delivered by Eusebius himself
(see the convincing arguments adduced by Stroth, p. xxvii. sq.). This
oration is no longer extant, but an idea of its character may be formed
from the address delivered by Eusebius at the Emperor's tricennalia
(which is still extant under the title De laudibus Constantini; see
below, p. 43) and from the general tone of his Life of Constantine. It
was avowedly a panegyric, and undoubtedly as fulsome as it was possible
to make it, and his powers in that direction were by no means slight.

That Eusebius, instead of the bishop of some more prominent church,
should have been selected to deliver the opening address, may have been
in part owing to his recognized standing as the most learned man and
the most famous writer in the Church, in part to the fact that he was
not as pronounced a partisan as some of his distinguished brethren; for
instance, Alexander of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Nicomedia; and
finally in some measure to his intimate relations with the Emperor. How
and when his intimacy with the latter grew up we do not know. As
already remarked, he seems to have become personally acquainted with
him many years before, when Constantine passed through Caesarea in the
train of Diocletian, and it may be that a mutual friendship, which was
so marked in later years, began at that time. However that may be,
Eusebius seems to have possessed special advantages of one kind or
another, enabling him to come into personal contact with official
circles, and once introduced to imperial notice, his wide learning,
sound common sense, genial temper and broad charity would insure him
the friendship of the Emperor himself, or of any other worthy officer
of state. We have no record of an intimacy between Constantine and
Eusebius before the Council of Nicaea, but many clear intimations of it
after that time. In fact, it is evident that during the last decade at
least of the Emperor's life, few, if any, bishops stood higher in his
esteem or enjoyed a larger measure of his confidence. Compare for
instance the records of their conversations (contained in the Vita
Constantini, I. 28 and II. 9), of their correspondence (ib. II. 46,
III. 61, IV. 35 and 36), and the words of Constantine himself (ib. III.
60). The marked attention paid by him to the speeches delivered by
Eusebius in his presence (ib. IV. 33 and 46) is also to be noticed.
Eusebius' intimacy with the imperial family is shown likewise in the
tone of the letter which he wrote to Constantia, the sister of
Constantine and wife of Licinius, in regard to a likeness of Christ
which she had asked him to send her. The frankness and freedom with
which he remonstrates with her for what he considers mistaken zeal on
her part, reveal a degree of familiarity which could have come only
from long and cordial relations between himself and his royal
correspondent. Whatever other reasons therefore may have combined to
indicate Eusebius as the most fitting person to deliver the oration in
honor of the Emperor at the Council of Nicaea, there can be little
doubt that Constantine's personal friendship for him had much to do
with his selection. The action of the Council on the subject of
Arianism, and Eusebius' conduct in the matter, have already been
discussed. Of the bishops assembled at the Council, not far from three
hundred in number (the reports of eye-witnesses vary from two hundred
and fifty to three hundred and eighteen), all but two signed the Nicene
creed as adopted by the Council. These two, both of them Egyptians,
were banished with Arius to Illyria, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and
Theognis of Nicaea, who subscribed the creed itself but refused to
assent to its anathemas, were also banished for a time, but soon
yielded, and were restored to their churches.

Into the other purposes for which the Nicene Council was called,--the
settlement of the dispute respecting the time of observing Easter and
the healing of the Meletian schism,--it is not necessary to enter here.
We have no record of the part which Eusebius took in these
transactions. Lightfoot has abundantly shown (p. 313 sq.) that the
common supposition that Eusebius was the author of the paschal cycle of
nineteen years is false, and that there is no reason to suppose that he
had anything particular to do with the decision of the paschal question
at this Council.
________________________________________________________________

S:7. Continuance of the Arian Controversy. Eusebius' Relations to the
Two Parties.

The Council of Nicaea did not bring the Arian controversy to an end.
The orthodox party was victorious, it is true, but the Arians were
still determined, and could not give up their enmity against the
opponents of Arius, and their hope that they might in the end turn the
tables on their antagonists. Meanwhile, within a few years after the
Council, a quarrel broke out between our Eusebius and Eustathius,
bishop of Antioch, a resolute supporter of Nicene orthodoxy. According
to Socrates (H. E. I. 23) and Sozomen (H. E. II. 18) Eustathius accused
Eusebius of perverting the Nicene doctrines, while Eusebius denied the
charge, and in turn taxed Eustathius with Sabellianism. The quarrel
finally became so serious that it was deemed necessary to summon a
Council for the investigation of Eustathius' orthodoxy and the
settlement of the dispute. This Council met in Antioch in 330 a.d. (see
Tillemont, VII. p. 651 sq., for a discussion of the date), and was made
up chiefly of bishops of Arian or semi-Arian tendencies. This fact,
however, brings no discredit upon Eusebius. The Council was held in
another province, and he can have had nothing to do with its
composition. In fact, convened, as it was, in Eustathius' own city, it
must have been legally organized; and indeed Eustathius himself
acknowledged its jurisdiction by appearing before it to answer the
charges made against him. Theodoret's absurd account of the origin of
the synod and of the accusations brought against Eustathius (H. E. I.
21) bears upon its face the stamp of falsehood, and is, as Hefele has
shown (Conciliengeschichte, I. 451), hopelessly in error in its
chronology. It is therefore to be rejected as quite worthless. The
decision of the Council doubtless fairly represented the views of the
majority of the bishops of that section, for we know that Arianism had
a very strong hold there. To think of a packed Council and of illegal
methods of procedure in procuring the verdict against Eustathius is
both unnecessary and unwarrantable. The result of the Council was the
deposition of Eustathius from his bishopric and his banishment by the
Emperor to Illyria, where he afterward died. There is a division of
opinion among our sources in regard to the immediate successor of
Eustathius. All of them agree that Eusebius was asked to become bishop
of Antioch, but that he refused the honor, and that Euphronius was
chosen in his stead. Socrates and Sozomen, however, inform us that the
election of Eusebius took place immediately after the deposition of
Eustathius, while Theodoret (H. E. I. 22) names Eulalius as Eustathius'
immediate successor, and states that he lived but a short time, and
that Eusebius was then asked to succeed him. Theodoret is supported by
Jerome (Chron., year of Abr. 2345) and by Philostorgius (H. E. III.
15), both of whom insert a bishop Eulalius between Eustathius and
Euphronius. It is easier to suppose that Socrates and Sozomen may have
omitted so unimportant a name at this point than that the other three
witnesses inserted it without warrant. Socrates indeed implies in the
same chapter that his knowledge of these affairs is limited, and it is
not surprising that Eusebius' election, which caused a great stir,
should have been connected in the mind of later writers immediately
with Eustathius' deposition, and the intermediate steps forgotten. It
seems probable, therefore, that immediately after the condemnation of
Eustathius, Eulalius was appointed in his place, perhaps by the same
Council, and that after his death, a few months later, Eusebius, who
had meanwhile gone back to Caesarea, was elected in due order by
another Council of neighboring bishops summoned for the purpose, and
that he was supported by a large party of citizens. It is noticeable
that the letter written by the Emperor to the Council, which wished to
transfer Eusebius to Antioch (see Vita Const. III. 62), mentions in its
salutation the names of five bishops, but among them is only one
(Theodotus) who is elsewhere named as present at the Council which
deposed Eustathius, while Eusebius of Nicomedia, and Theognis of
Nicaea, as well as others whom we know to have been on hand on that
occasion, are not referred to by the Emperor. This fact certainly seems
to point to a different council.

It is greatly to Eusebius' credit that he refused the call extended to
him. Had he been governed simply by selfish ambition he would certainly
have accepted it, for the patriarchate of Antioch stood at that time
next to Alexandria in point of honor in the Eastern Church. The Emperor
commended him very highly for his decision, in his epistles to the
people of Antioch and to the Council (Vita Const. III. 60, 62), and in
that to Eusebius himself (ib. III. 61). He saw in it a desire on
Eusebius' part to observe the ancient canon of the Church, which
forbade the transfer of a bishop from one see to another. But that in
itself can hardly have been sufficient to deter the latter from
accepting the high honor offered him, for it was broken without scruple
on all sides. It is more probable that he saw that the schism of the
Antiochenes would be embittered by the induction into the bishopric of
that church of Eustathius' chief opponent, and that he did not feel
that he had a right so to divide the Church of God. Eusebius' general
character, as known to us, justifies us in supposing that this high
motive had much to do with his decision. We may suppose also that so
difficult a place can have had no very great attractions for a man of
his age and of his peace-loving disposition and scholarly tastes. In
Caesarea he had spent his life; there he had the great library of
Pamphilus at his disposal, and leisure to pursue his literary work. In
Antioch he would have found himself compelled to plunge into the midst
of quarrels and seditions of all kinds, and would have been obliged to
devote his entire attention to the performance of his official duties.
His own tastes therefore must have conspired with his sense of duty to
lead him to reject the proffered call and to remain in the somewhat
humbler station which he already occupied.

Not long after the deposition of Eustathius, the Arians and their
sympathizers began to work more energetically to accomplish the ruin of
Athanasius, their greatest foe. He had become Alexander's successor as
bishop of Alexandria in the year 326, and was the acknowledged head of
the orthodox party. If he could be brought into discredit, there might
be hopes of restoring Arius to his position in Alexandria, and of
securing for Arianism a recognition, and finally a dominating influence
in the church at large. To the overthrow of Athanasius therefore all
good Arians bent their energies. They found ready accomplices in the
schismatical Meletians of Egypt, who were bitter enemies of the
orthodox church of Alexandria. It was useless to accuse Athanasius of
heterodoxy; he was too widely known as the pillar of the orthodox
faith. Charges must be framed of another sort, and of a sort to stir up
the anger of the Emperor against him. The Arians therefore and the
Meletians began to spread the most vile and at the same time absurd
stories about Athanasius (see especially the latter's Apol. c. Arian.
S:59 sq.). These at last became so notorious that the Emperor summoned
Athanasius to appear and make his defense before a council of bishops
to be held in Caesarea (Sozomen, H. E. II. 25; Theodoret, H. E. I. 28).
Athanasius, however, fearing that the Council would be composed wholly
of his enemies, and that it would therefore be impossible to secure
fair play, excused himself and remained away. But in the following year
(see Sozomen, H. E. II. 25) he received from the Emperor a summons to
appear before a council at Tyre. The summons was too peremptory to
admit of a refusal, and Athanasius therefore attended, accompanied by
many of his devoted adherents (see Sozomen, ib.; Theodoret, H. E. I.
30; Socrates, H. E. I. 28; Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. S:71 sq.;
Eusebius, Vita Const. IV. 41 sq., and Epiphanius, Haer. LXVIII. 8).
After a time, perceiving that he had no chance of receiving fair play,
he suddenly withdrew from the Council and proceeded directly to
Constantinople, in order to lay his case before the Emperor himself,
and to induce the latter to allow him to meet his accusers in his
presence, and plead his cause before him. There was nothing for the
Synod to do after his flight but to sustain the charges brought against
him, some of which he had not stayed to refute, and to pass
condemnation upon him. Besides various immoral and sacrilegious deeds
of which he was accused, his refusal to appear before the Council of
Caesarea the previous year was made an important item of the
prosecution. It was during this Council that Potamo flung at Eusebius
the taunt of cowardice, to which reference was made above, and which
doubtless did much to confirm Eusebius' distrust of and hostility to
the Athanasian party. Whether Eusebius of Caesarea, as is commonly
supposed, or Eusebius of Nicomedia, or some other bishop, presided at
this Council we are not able to determine. The account of Epiphanius
seems to imply that the former was presiding at the time that Potamo
made his untimely accusation. Our sources are, most of them, silent on
the matter, but according to Valesius, Eusebius of Nicomedia is named
by some of them, but which they are I have not been able to discover.
We learn from Socrates (H. E. I. 28), as well as from other sources,
that this Synod of Tyre was held in the thirtieth year of Constantine's
reign, that is, between July, 334, and July, 335. As the Council was
closed only in time for the bishops to reach Jerusalem by July, 335, it
is probable that it was convened in 335 rather than in 334. From
Sozomen (H. E. II. 25) we learn also that the Synod of Caesarea had
been held the preceding year, therefore in 333 or 334 (the latter being
the date commonly given by historians). While the Council of Tyre was
still in session, the bishops were commanded by Constantine to proceed
immediately to Jerusalem to take part in the approaching festival to be
held there on the occasion of his tricennalia. The scene was one of
great splendor. Bishops were present from all parts of the world, and
the occasion was marked by the dedication of the new and magnificent
basilica which Constantine had erected upon the site of Calvary
(Theodoret, I. 31; Socrates, I. 28 and 33; Sozomen, II. 26; Eusebius,
Vita Const. IV. 41 and 43). The bishops gathered in Jerusalem at this
time held another synod before separating. In this they completed the
work begun at Tyre, by re-admitting Arius and his adherents to the
communion of the Church (see Socrates, I. 33, and Sozomen, II. 27).
According to Sozomen the Emperor, having been induced to recall Arius
from banishment in order to reconsider his case, was presented by the
latter with a confession of faith, which was so worded as to convince
Constantine of his orthodoxy. He therefore sent Arius and his companion
Euzoius to the bishops assembled in Jerusalem with the request that
they would examine the confession, and if they were satisfied with its
orthodoxy would re-admit them to communion. The Council, which was
composed largely of Arius' friends and sympathizers, was only too glad
to accede to the Emperor's request.

Meanwhile Athanasius had induced Constantine, out of a sense of
justice, to summon the bishops that had condemned him at Tyre to give
an account of their proceedings before the Emperor himself at
Constantinople. This unexpected, and, doubtless, not altogether welcome
summons came while the bishops were at Jerusalem, and the majority of
them at once returned home in alarm, while only a few answered the call
and repaired to Constantinople. Among these were Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Theognis of Nicaea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and other prominent
Arians, and with them our Eusebius (Athanasius, Apol. c. Arian. S:S:86
and 87; Socrates, I. 33-35; Sozomen, II. 28). The accusers of
Athanasius said nothing on this occasion in regard to his alleged
immoralities, for which he had been condemned at Tyre, but made another
equally trivial accusation against him, and the result was his
banishment to Gaul. Whether Constantine banished him because he
believed the charge brought against him, or because he wished to
preserve him from the machinations of his enemies (as asserted by his
son Constantine, and apparently believed by Athanasius himself; see his
Apol. c. Arian. S:87), or because he thought that Athanasius' absence
would allay the troubles in the Alexandrian church we do not know. The
latter supposition seems most probable. In any case he was not recalled
from banishment until after Constantine's death. Our Eusebius has been
severely condemned by many historians for the part taken by him in the
Eustathian controversy and especially in the war against Athanasius. In
justice to him a word or two must be spoken in his defense. So far as
his relations to Eustathius are concerned, it is to be noticed that the
latter commenced the controversy by accusing Eusebius of heterodoxy.
Eusebius himself did not begin the quarrel, and very likely had no
desire to engage in any such doctrinal strife; but he was compelled to
defend himself, and in doing so he could not do otherwise than accuse
Eustathius of Sabellianism; for if the latter was not satisfied with
Eusebius' orthodoxy, which Eusebius himself believed to be truly
Nicene, then he must be leaning too far toward the other extreme; that
is, toward Sabellianism. There is no reason to doubt that Eusebius was
perfectly straightforward and honorable throughout the whole
controversy, and at the Council of Antioch itself. That he was not
actuated by unworthy motives, or by a desire for revenge, is evinced by
his rejection of the proffered call to Antioch, the acceptance of which
would have given him so good an opportunity to triumph over his fallen
enemy. It must be admitted, in fact, that Eusebius comes out of this
controversy without a stain of any kind upon his character. He honestly
believed Eustathius to be a Sabellian, and he acted accordingly.

Eusebius has been blamed still more severely for his treatment of
Athanasius. But again the facts must be looked at impartially. It is
necessary always to remember that Sabellianism was in the beginning and
remained throughout his life the heresy which he most dreaded, and
which he had perhaps most reason to dread. He must, even at the Council
of Nicaea, have suspected Athanasius, who laid so much stress upon the
unity of essence on the part of Father and Son, of a leaning toward
Sabellianistic principles; and this suspicion must have been increased
when he discovered, as he believed, that Athanasius' most staunch
supporter, Eustathius, was a genuine Sabellian. Moreover, on the other
side, it is to be remembered that Eusebius of Nicomedia, and all the
other leading Arians, had signed the Nicene creed and had proclaimed
themselves thoroughly in sympathy with its teaching. Our Eusebius,
knowing the change that had taken place in his own mind upon the
controverted points, may well have believed that their views had
undergone even a greater change, and that they were perfectly honest in
their protestations of orthodoxy. And finally, when Arius himself
presented a confession of faith which led the Emperor, who had had a
personal interview with him, to believe that he had altered his views
and was in complete harmony with the Nicene faith, it is not surprising
that our Eusebius, who was naturally unsuspicious, conciliatory and
peace-loving, should think the same thing, and be glad to receive Arius
back into communion, while at the same time remaining perfectly loyal
to the orthodoxy of the Nicene creed which he had subscribed. Meanwhile
his suspicions of the Arian party being in large measure allayed, and
his distrust of the orthodoxy of Athanasius and of his adherents being
increased by the course of events, it was only natural that he should
lend more or less credence to the calumnies which were so industriously
circulated against Athanasius. To charge him with dishonesty for being
influenced by these reports, which seem to us so absurd and palpably
calumnious, is quite unwarranted. Constantine, who was, if not a
theologian, at least a clear-headed and sharp-sighted man, believed
them, and why should Eusebius not have done the same? The incident
which took place at the Council of Tyre in connection with Potamo and
himself was important; for whatever doubts he may have had up to that
time as to the truth of the accusations made against Athanasius and his
adherents, Potamo's conduct convinced him that the charges of tyranny
and high-handed dealing brought against the whole party were quite
true. It could not be otherwise than that he should believe that the
good of the Alexandrian church, and therefore of the Church at large,
demanded the deposition of the seditious and tyrannous archbishop, who
was at the same time quite probably Sabellianistic in his tendencies.
It must in justice be noted that there is not the slightest reason to
suppose that our Eusebius had anything to do with the dishonorable
intrigues of the Arian party throughout this controversy. Athanasius,
who cannot say enough in condemnation of the tactics of Eusebius of
Nicomedia and his supporters, never mentions Eusebius of Caesarea in a
tone of bitterness. He refers to him occasionally as a member of the
opposite party, but he has no complaints to utter against him, as he
has against the others. This is very significant, and should put an end
to all suspicions of unworthy conduct on Eusebius' part. It is to be
observed that the latter, though having good cause as he believed to
condemn Athanasius and his adherents, never acted as a leader in the
war against them. His name, if mentioned at all, occurs always toward
the end of the list as one of the minor combatants, although his
position and his learning would have entitled him to take the most
prominent position in the whole affair, if he had cared to. He was but
true to his general character in shrinking from such a controversy, and
in taking part in it only in so far as his conscience compelled him to.
We may suspect indeed that he would not have made one of the small
party that repaired to Constantinople in response to the Emperor's
imperious summons had it not been for the celebration of Constantine's
tricennalia, which was taking place there at the time, and at which he
delivered, on the special invitation of the Emperor and in his
presence, one of his greatest orations. Certain it is, from the account
which he gives in his Vita Constantini, that both in Constantinople and
in Jerusalem the festival of the tricennalia, with its attendant
ceremonies, interested him much more than did the condemnation of
Athanasius.
________________________________________________________________

S:8. Eusebius and Marcellus.

It was during this visit to Constantinople that another synod was held,
at which Eusebius was present, and the result of which was the
condemnation and deposition of the bishop Marcellus of Ancyra (see
Socrates, I. 36; Sozomen, II. 33; Eusebius, Contra Marc. II. 4). The
attitude of our Eusebius toward Marcellus is again significant of his
theological tendencies. Marcellus had written a book against Asterius,
a prominent Arian, in which, in his zeal for the Nicene orthodoxy, he
had laid himself open to the charge of Sabellianism. On this account he
was deposed by the Constantinopolitan Synod, and our Eusebius was urged
to write a work exposing his errors and defending the action of the
Council. As a consequence he composed his two works against Marcellus
which will be described later. That Eusebius, if not in the case of
Athanasius and possibly not in that of Eustathius, had at least in the
present case good ground for the belief that Marcellus was a Sabellian,
or Sabellianistic in tendency, is abundantly proved by the citations
which he makes from Marcellus' own works; and, moreover, his judgment
and that of the Synod was later confirmed even by Athanasius himself.
Though not suspecting Marcellus for some time, Athanasius finally
became convinced that he had deviated from the path of orthodoxy, and,
as Newman has shown (in his introduction to Athanasius' fourth
discourse against the Arians, Oxford Library of the Fathers, vol. 19,
p. 503 sq.), directed that discourse against his errors and those of
his followers.

The controversy with Marcellus seems to have been the last in which
Eusebius was engaged, and it was opposition to the dreaded heresy of
Sabellius which moved him here as in all the other cases. It is
important to emphasize, however, what is often overlooked, that though
Eusebius during these years was so continuously engaged in controversy
with one or another of the members of the anti-Arian party, there is no
evidence that he ever deviated from the doctrinal position which he
took at the Council of Nicaea. After that date it was never Arianism
which he consciously supported; it was never the Nicene orthodoxy which
he opposed. He supported those members of the old Arian party who had
signed the Nicene creed and protested that they accepted its teaching,
against those members of the opposite party whom he believed to be
drifting toward Sabellianism, or acting tyrannously and unjustly toward
their opponents. The anti-Sabellianistic interest influenced him all
the time, but his post-Nicene writings contain no evidence that he had
fallen back into the Arianizing position which he had held before 325.
They reveal, on the contrary, a fair type of orthodoxy, colored only by
its decidedly anti-Sabellian emphasis.
__________________________________________________________________

S:9. The Death of Eusebius.

In less than two years after the celebration of his tricennalia, on May
22, 337 a.d., the great Constantine breathed his last, in Nicomedia,
his former Capital. Eusebius, already an old man, produced a lasting
testimonial of his own unbounded affection and admiration for the first
Christian emperor, in his Life of Constantine. Soon afterward he
followed his imperial friend at the advanced age of nearly, if not
quite, eighty years. The exact date of his death is unknown, but it can
be fixed approximately. We know from Sozomen (H. E. III. 5) that in the
summer of 341, when a council was held at Antioch (on the date of the
Council, which we are able to fix with great exactness, see Hefele,
Conciliengesch. I. p. 502 sq.) Acacius, Eusebius' successor, was
already bishop of Caesarea. Socrates (H. E. II. 4) and Sozomen (H. E.
III. 2) both mention the death of Eusebius and place it shortly before
the death of Constantine the younger, which took place early in 340
(see Tillemont's Hist. des Emp. IV. p. 327 sq.), and after the
intrigues had begun which resulted in Athanasius' second banishment. We
are thus led to place Eusebius' death late in the year 339, or early in
the year 340 (cf. Lightfoot's article, p. 318).
________________________________________________________________

Chapter II

The Writings of Eusebius.

S:1. Eusebius as a Writer

Eusebius was one of the most voluminous writers of antiquity, and his
labors covered almost every field of theological learning. In the words
of Lightfoot he was "historian, apologist, topographer, exegete,
critic, preacher, dogmatic writer, in turn." It is as an historian that
he is best known, but the importance of his historical writings should
not cause us to overlook, as modern scholars have been prone to do, his
invaluable productions in other departments. Lightfoot passes a very
just judgment upon the importance of his works in the following words:
"If the permanent utility of an author's labors may be taken as a test
of literary excellence, Eusebius will hold a very high place indeed.
The Ecclesiastical History is absolutely unique and indispensable. The
Chronicle is the vast storehouse of information relating to the ancient
monarchies of the world. The Preparation and Demonstration are the most
important contributions to theology in their own province. Even the
minor works, such as the Martyrs of Palestine, the Life of Constantine,
the Questions addressed to Stephanus and to Marinus, and others, would
leave an irreparable blank, if they were obliterated. And the same
permanent value attaches also to his more technical treatises. The
Canons and Sections have never yet been superseded for their particular
purpose. The Topography of Palestine is the most important contribution
to our knowledge in its own department. In short, no ancient
ecclesiastical writer has laid posterity under heavier obligations."

If we look in Eusebius' works for evidences of brilliant genius we
shall be disappointed. He did not possess a great creative mind like
Origen's or Augustine's. His claim to greatness rests upon his vast
erudition and his sterling sense. His powers of acquisition were
remarkable and his diligence in study unwearied. He had at his command
undoubtedly more acquired material than any man of his age, and he
possessed that true literary and historical instinct which enabled him
to select from his vast stores of knowledge those things which it was
most worth his while to tell to the world. His writings therefore
remain valuable while the works of many others, perhaps no less richly
equipped than himself for the mission of adding to the sum of human
knowledge, are entirely forgotten. He thus had the ability to do more
than acquire; he had the ability to impart to others the very best of
that which he acquired, and to make it useful to them. There is not in
his writings the brilliancy which we find in some others, there is not
the same sparkle and freshness of new and suggestive thought, there is
not the same impress of an overmastering individuality which transforms
everything it touches. There is, however, a true and solid merit which
marks his works almost without exception, and raises them above the
commonplace. His exegesis is superior to that of most of his
contemporaries, and his apologetics is marked by fairness of statement,
breadth of treatment, and instinctive appreciation of the difference
between the important and the unimportant points under discussion,
which give to his apologetic works a permanent value. His wide
acquaintance, too, with other systems than his own, and with the
products of Pagan as well as Christian thought, enabled him to see
things in their proper relations and to furnish a treatment of the
great themes of Christianity adapted to the wants of those who had
looked beyond the confines of a single school. At the same time it must
be acknowledged that he was not always equal to the grand opportunities
which his acquaintance with the works and lives of other men and other
peoples opened before him. He does not always reveal the possession of
that high quality of genius which is able to interpret the most various
forces and to discover the higher principles of unity which alone make
them intelligible; indeed, he often loses himself completely in a
wilderness of thoughts and notions which have come to him from other
men and other ages, and the result is dire confusion.

We shall be disappointed, too, if we seek in the works of Eusebius for
evidences of a refined literary taste, or for any of the charms which
attach to the writings of a great master of composition. His style is,
as a rule, involved and obscure, often painfully rambling and
incoherent. This quality is due in large part to the desultoriness of
his thinking. He did not often enough clearly define and draw the
boundaries of his subject before beginning to write upon it. He
apparently did much of his thinking after he had taken pen in hand, and
did not subject what he had thus produced to a sufficiently careful
revision, if to any revision at all. Thoughts and suggestions poured in
upon him while he was writing; and he was not always able to resist the
temptation to insert them as they came, often to the utter perversion
of his train of thought, and to the ruin of the coherency and
perspicuity of his style. It must be acknowledged, too, that his
literary taste was, on the whole, decidedly vicious. Whenever a flight
of eloquence is attempted by him, as it is altogether too often, his
style becomes hopelessly turgid and pretentious. At such times his
skill in mixing metaphors is something astounding (compare, for
instance, H. E. II. 14). On the other hand, his works contain not a few
passages of real beauty. This is especially true of his Martyrs of
Palestine, where his enthusiastic admiration for and deep sympathy with
the heroes of the faith cause him often to forget himself and to
describe their sufferings in language of genuine fire or pathos. At
times, too, when he has a sharply defined and absorbing aim in mind,
and when the subject with which he is dealing does not seem to him to
demand rhetorical adornment, he is simple and direct enough in his
language, showing in such cases that his commonly defective style is
not so much the consequence of an inadequate command of the Greek
tongue as of desultory thinking and vicious literary taste.

But while we find much to criticise in Eusebius' writings, we ought not
to fail to give him due credit for the conscientiousness and
faithfulness with which he did his work. He wrote often, it is true,
too rapidly for the good of his style, and he did not always revise his
works as carefully as he should have done; but we seldom detect undue
haste in the collection of materials or carelessness and negligence in
the use of them. He seems to have felt constantly the responsibilities
which rested upon him as a scholar and writer, and to have done his
best to meet those responsibilities. It is impossible to avoid
contrasting him in this respect with the most learned man of the
ancient Latin Church, St. Jerome. The haste and carelessness with which
the latter composed his De Viris Illustribus, and with which he
translated and continued Eusebius' Chronicle, remain an everlasting
disgrace to him. An examination of those and of some others of Jerome's
works must tend to raise Eusebius greatly in our esteem. He was at
least conscientious and honest in his work, and never allowed himself
to palm off ignorance as knowledge, or to deceive his readers by
sophistries, misstatements, and pure inventions. He aimed to put the
reader into possession of the knowledge which he had himself acquired,
but was always conscientious enough to stop there, and not attempt to
make fancy play the role of fact.

One other point, which was mentioned some pages back, and to which
Lightfoot calls particular attention, should be referred to here,
because of its bearing upon the character of Eusebius' writings. He
was, above all things, an apologist; and the apologetic aim governed
both the selection of his subjects and method of his treatment. He
composed none of his works with a purely scientific aim. He thought
always of the practical result to be attained, and his selection of
material and his choice of method were governed by that. And yet we
must recognize the fact that this aim was never narrowing in its
effects. He took a broad view of apologetics, and in his lofty
conception of the Christian religion he believed that every field of
knowledge might be laid under tribute to it. He was bold enough to be
confident that history, philosophy, and science all contribute to our
understanding and appreciation of divine truth; and so history and
philosophy and science were studied and handled by him freely and
fearlessly. He did not feel the need of distorting truth of any kind
because it might work injury to the religion which he professed. On the
contrary, he had a sublime faith which led him to believe that all
truth must have its place and its mission, and that the cause of
Christianity will be benefited by its discovery and diffusion. As an
apologist, therefore, all fields of knowledge had an interest for him;
and he was saved that pettiness of mind and narrowness of outlook which
are sometimes characteristic of those who write with a purely practical
motive.
________________________________________________________________

S:2. Catalogue of his Works.

There is no absolutely complete edition of Eusebius' extant works. The
only one which can lay claim even to relative completeness is that of
Migne: Eusebii Pamphili, Caesareae Palestinae Episcopi, Opera omnia
quae extant, curis variorum, nempe: Henrici Valesii, Francisci Vigeri,
Bernardi Montfauconii, Card. Angelo Maii edita; collegit et denuo
recognovit J. P. Migne. Par. 1857. 6 vols. (tom. XIX.-XXIV. of Migne's
Patrologia Graeca). This edition omits the works which are extant only
in Syriac versions, also the Topica, and some brief but important Greek
fragments (among them the epistles to Alexander and Euphration). The
edition, however, is invaluable and cannot be dispensed with.
References to it (under the simple title Opera) will be given below in
connection with those works which it contains. Many of Eusebius'
writings, especially the historical, have been published separately.
Such editions will be mentioned in their proper place in the Catalogue.

More or less incomplete lists of our author's writings are given by
Jerome (De vir. ill. 87); by Nicephorus Callistus (H. E. VI. 37); by
Ebedjesu (in Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p. 18 sq.); by Photius
(Bibl. 9-13, 27, 39, 127); and by Suidas (who simply copies the Greek
version of Jerome). Among modern works all the lives of Eusebius
referred to in the previous chapter give more or less extended
catalogues of his writings. In addition to the works mentioned there,
valuable lists are also found in Lardner's Credibility, Part II chap.
72, and especially in Fabricius' Bibl. Graeca (ed. 1714), vol. VI. p.
30 sq.

The writings of Eusebius that are known to us, extant and non-extant,
may be classified for convenience' sake under the following heads: I.
Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV. Dogmatic. V. Critical and
Exegetical. VI. Biblical Dictionaries. VII. Orations. VIII. Epistles.
IX. Spurious or doubtful works. The classification is necessarily
somewhat artificial, and claims to be neither exhaustive nor exclusive.
[4]

I. Historical Works.

Life of Pamphilus (he tou Pamphilou biou anagraphe; see H. E. VI. 32).
Eusebius himself refers to this work in four passages (H. E. VI. 32,
VII. 32, VIII. 13, and Mart. Pal. c. 11). In the last he informs us
that it consisted of three books. The work is mentioned also more than
once by Jerome (De vir. ill. 81; Ep. ad Marcellam, Migne's ed. Ep. 34;
Contra Ruf. I. 9), who speaks of it in terms of praise, and in the last
passage gives a brief extract from the third book, which is, so far as
known, the only extant fragment of the work. The date of its
composition can be fixed within comparatively narrow limits. It must of
course have been written before the shorter recension of the Martyrs of
Palestine, which contains a reference to it (on its relation to the
longer recension, which does not mention it, see below, p. 30), and
also before the History, (i.e. as early as 313 a.d. (?), see below, p.
45). On the other hand, it was written after Pamphilus' death (see H.
E. VII. 32, 25), which occurred in 310.

Martyrs of Palestine (peri ton en Palaistine marturesEURnton). This
work is extant in two recensions, a longer and a shorter. The longer
has been preserved entire only in a Syriac version, which was
published, with English translation and notes, by Cureton in 1861. A
fragment of the original Greek of this work as preserved by Simon
Metaphrastes had previously been published by Papebroch in the Acta
Sanctorum (June, tom. I. p. 64; reprinted by Fabricius, Hippolytus, II.
p. 217), but had been erroneously regarded as an extract from Eusebius'
Life of Pamphilus. Cureton's publication of the Syriac version of the
Martyrs of Palestine showed that it was a part of the original of that
work. There are extant also, in Latin, the Acts of St. Procopius, which
were published by Valesius (in his edition of Eusebius' Hist. Eccles.
in a note on the first chapter of the Mart. Pal.; reprinted by Cureton,
Mart. Pal. p. 50 sq.). Moreover, according to Cureton, Assemani's Acta
SS. Martyrum Orient. et Occidentalium, part II. p. 169 sq. (Romae,
1748) contains another Syriac version of considerable portions of this
same work. The Syriac version published by Cureton was made within less
than a century after the composition of the original work (the
manuscript of it dates from 411 a.d.; see Cureton, ib., preface, p.
i.), perhaps within a few years after it, and there is every reason to
suppose that it represents that original with considerable exactness.
That Eusebius himself was the author of the original cannot be doubted.
In addition to this longer recension there is extant in Greek a shorter
form of the same work which is found attached to the Ecclesiastical
History in most mss. of the latter. In some of them it is placed
between the eighth and ninth books, in others at the close of the tenth
book, while one ms. inserts it in the middle of VIII. 13. In some of
the most important mss. it is wanting entirely, as likewise in the
translation of Rufinus, and, according to Lightfoot, in the Syriac
version of the History. Most editions of Eusebius' History print it at
the close of the eighth book. Migne gives it separately in Opera, II.
1457 sq. In the present volume the translation of it is given as an
appendix to the eighth book, on p. 342 sq.

There can be no doubt that the shorter form is younger than the longer.
The mention of the Life of Pamphilus which is contained in the shorter,
but is not found in the corresponding passage of the longer form would
seem to indicate that the former was a remodeling of the latter rather
than the latter of the former (see below, p. 30). Moreover, as Cureton
and Lightfoot both point out, the difference between the two works both
in substance and in method is such as to make it clear that the shorter
form is a revised abridgment of the longer. That Eusebius himself was
the author of the shorter as well as of the longer form is shown by the
fact that not only in the passages common to both recensions, but also
in those peculiar to the shorter one, the author speaks in the same
person and as an eye-witness of many of the events which he records.
And still further, in Chap. 11 he speaks of having himself written the
Life of Pamphilus in three books, a notice which is wanting in the
longer form and therefore must emanate from the hand of the author of
the shorter. It is interesting to inquire after Eusebius' motive in
publishing an abridged edition of this work. Cureton supposes that he
condensed it simply for the purpose of inserting it in the second
edition of his History. Lightfoot, on the other hand, suggests that it
may have formed "part of a larger work, in which the sufferings of the
martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors," and he is
inclined to see in the brief appendix to the eighth book of the History
(translated below on p. 340) "a fragment of the second part of the
treatise of which the Martyrs of Palestine in the shorter recension
formed the first." The suggestion is, to say the least, very plausible.
If it be true, the attachment of the shorter form of the Martyrs of
Palestine to the Ecclesiastical History was probably the work, not of
Eusebius himself, but of some copyist or copyists, and the disagreement
among the various mss. as to its position in the History is more easily
explained on this supposition than on Cureton's theory that it was
attached to a later edition of the latter work by Eusebius himself.

The date at which the Martyrs of Palestine was composed cannot be
determined with certainty. It was at any rate not published until after
the first nine books of the Ecclesiastical History (i.e. not before
313, see below, p. 45), for it is referred to as a projected work in H.
E. VIII. 13. 7. On the other hand, the accounts contained in the longer
recension bear many marks of having been composed on the spot, while
the impressions left by the martyrdoms witnessed by the author were
still fresh upon him. Moreover, it is noticeable that in connection
with the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom, given in the shorter
recension, reference is made to the Life of Pamphilus as a book already
published, while in the corresponding account in the longer recension
no such book is referred to. This would seem to indicate that the Life
of Pamphilus was written after the longer, but before the shorter
recension of the Martyrs. But on the other hand the Life was written
before the Ecclesiastical History (see above, p. 29), and consequently
before the publication of either recension of the Martyrs. May it not
be that the accounts of the various martyrdoms were written, at least
some of them, during the persecution, but that they were not arranged,
completed, and published until 313, or later? If this be admitted we
may suppose that the account of Pamphilus' martyrdom was written soon
after his death and before the Life was begun. When it was later
embodied with the other accounts in the one work On the Martyrs of
Palestine it may have been left just as it was, and it may not have
occurred to the author to insert a reference to the Life of Pamphilus
which had meanwhile been published. But when he came to abridge and in
part rewrite for a new edition the accounts of the various martyrdoms
contained in the work On Martyrs he would quite naturally refer the
reader to the Life for fuller particulars.

If we then suppose that the greater part of the longer recension of the
Martyrs was already complete before the end of the persecution, it is
natural to conclude that the whole work was published at an early date,
probably as soon as possible after the first edition of the History.
How much later the abridgment was made we cannot tell. [5]

The differences between the two recensions lie chiefly in the greater
fullness of detail on the part of the longer one. The arrangement and
general mode of treatment is the same in both. They contain accounts of
the Martyrs that suffered in Palestine during the years 303-310, most
of whom Eusebius himself saw.

Collection of Ancient Martyrdoms (archaion marturion sunagoge). This
work is mentioned by Eusebius in his H. E. IV. 15, V. praef., 4, 21.
These notices indicate that it was not an original composition, but
simply a compilation; a collection of extant accounts of martyrdoms
which had taken place before Eusebius' day. The work is no longer
extant, but the accounts of the martyrdom of Pamphilus and others at
Smyrna, of the persecution in Lyons and Vienne, and of the defense of
Apollonius in Rome, which Eusebius inserts in his Ecclesiastical
History (IV. 15, V. 1, V. 21), are taken, as he informs us, from this
collection. As to the time of compilation, we can say only that it
antedates the composition of the earlier books of the History (on whose
date, see below, p. 45).

Chronicle (chronikoi kanones). Eusebius refers to this work in his
Church History (I. 1), in his Praeparatio Evang. X. 9, and at the
beginning of his Eclogae propheticae. It is divided into two books, the
first of which consists of an epitome of universal history drawn from
various sources, the second of chronological tables, which "exhibit in
parallel columns the succession of the rulers of different nations in
such a way that the reader can see at a glance with whom any given
monarch was contemporary." The tables "are accompanied by notes,
marking the years of some of the more remarkable historical events,
these notes also constituting an epitome of history." Eusebius was not
the first Christian writer to compose a work on universal chronology.
Julius Africanus had published a similar work early in the third
century, and from that Eusebius drew his model and a large part of the
material for his own work. At the same time his Chronicle is more than
a simple revision of Africanus' work, and contains the result of much
independent investigation on his own part. The work of Africanus is no
longer extant, and that of Eusebius was likewise lost for a great many
centuries, being superseded by a revised Latin edition, issued by
Jerome. Jerome's edition, which comprises only the second book of
Eusebius' Chronicle, is a translation of the original work, enlarged by
notices taken from various writers concerning human history, and
containing a continuation of the chronology down to his own time. This,
together with numerous Greek fragments preserved by various ancient
writers, constituted our only source for a knowledge of the original
work, until late in the last century an Armenian translation of the
whole work was discovered and published in two volumes by J. B. Aucher:
Venice, 1818. The Armenian translation contains a great many errors and
not a few lacunae, but it is our most valuable source for a knowledge
of the original work.

The aim of the Chronicle was, above all, apologetic, the author wishing
to prove by means of it that the Jewish religion, of which the
Christian was the legitimate continuation, was older than the oldest of
heathen cults, and thus deprive pagan opponents of their taunt of
novelty, so commonly hurled against Christianity. As early as the
second century, the Christian apologists had emphasized the antiquity
of Judaism; but Julius Africanus was the first to devote to the matter
scientific study, and it was with the same idea that Eusebius followed
in his footsteps. The Chronology, in spite of its errors, is invaluable
for the light it throws on many otherwise dark periods of history, and
for the numerous extracts it contains from works no longer extant.

There are good and sufficient reasons (as is pointed out by Salmon in
his article in Smith and Wace's Dictionary of Christian Biography) for
supposing that two editions of the Chronicle were published by
Eusebius. But two of these reasons need be stated here: first, the
chronology of the Armenian version differs from that of Jerome's
edition in many important particulars, divergencies which can be
satisfactorily accounted for only on the supposition of a difference in
the sources from which they respectively drew; secondly, Jerome states
directly that the work was brought down to the vicennalia of
Constantine,--that is, to the year 325,--but the Chronicle is referred
to as an already published work in the Eclogae propheticae (I. 1), and
in the Praeparatio Evang. (X. 9), both of which were written before
313. We may conclude, then, that a first edition of the work was
published during, or more probably before, the great persecution, and
that a second and revised edition was issued probably in 325, or soon
thereafter.

For further particulars in regard to the Chronicle see especially the
article of Salmon already referred to. The work has been issued
separately a great many times. We may refer here to the edition of
Scaliger, which was published in 1606 (2d ed. 1658), in which he
attempted to restore the Greek text from the fragments of Syncellus and
other ancient writers, and to the new edition of Mai, which was printed
in 1833 in his Scriptorum veterum nova collectio, Tom. VIII., and
reprinted by Migne, Eusebii Opera, I. 99-598. The best and most recent
edition, however, and the one which supersedes all earlier editions, is
that of Alfred Schoene, in two volumes: Berlin, 1875 and 1866.

Ecclesiastical History (ekklesiastike historia). For a discussion of
this work see below, p. 45 sq.

Life of Constantine (eis ton bion tou makariou Konstantinou tou
basileos). For particulars in regard to this work, see the prolegomena
of Dr. Richardson, on pp. 466-469 sq., of this volume.

II. Apologetic Works.

Against Hierocles (pros tous huper 'Apolloniou tou tuaneos ;;Ierokleous
logous, as Photius calls it in his Bibl. 39). Hierocles was governor of
Bithynia during the early years of the Diocletian persecution, and
afterwards governor of Egypt. In both places he treated the Christians
with great severity, carrying out the edicts of the emperors to the
fullest extent, and even making use of the most terrible and loathsome
forms of persecution (see Lactantius, De Mort. Pers. 16, and Eusebius,
Mart. Pal. 5, Cureton's ed. p. 18). He was at the same time a
Neo-Platonic philosopher, exceedingly well versed in the Scriptures and
doctrines of the Christians. In a work against the Christians entitled
logos philalethes pros tous christianous, he brought forward many
scriptural difficulties and alleged contradictions, and also instituted
a comparison between Christ and Apollonius of Tyana, with the intention
of disparaging the former. Eusebius feels called upon to answer the
work, but confines himself entirely to that part of it which concerned
Christ and Apollonius, leaving to some future time a refutation of the
remainder of the work, which indeed, he says, as a mere reproduction of
the arguments of Celsus, had been already virtually answered by Origen
(see chap. 1). Eusebius admits that Apollonius was a good man, but
refuses to concede that he was anything more, or that he can be
compared with Christ. He endeavors to show that the account of
Apollonius given by Philostratus is full of contradictions and does not
rest upon trustworthy evidence. The tone of the book is mild, and the
arguments in the main sound and well presented. It is impossible to fix
the date of the work with any degree of certainty. Valesius assigns it
to the later years of the persecution, when Eusebius visited Egypt;
Stein says that it may have been written about 312 or 313, or even
earlier; while Lightfoot simply remarks, "it was probably one of the
earliest works of Eusebius." There is no ground for putting it at one
time rather than another except the intrinsic probability that it was
written soon after the work to which it was intended to be a reply. In
fact, had a number of years elapsed after the publication of Hierocles'
attack, Eusebius would doubtless, if writing against it at all, have
given a fuller and more complete refutation of it, such as he suggests
in the first chapter that he may yet give. The work of Hierocles,
meanwhile, must have been written at any rate some time before the end
of the persecution, for it is mentioned in Lactantius' Div. Inst. V. 2.

Eusebius' work has been published by Gaisford: Eusebii Pamph. contra
Hieroclem et Marcellum libri, Oxon. 1852; and also in various editions
of the works of Philostratus. Migne, Opera IV. 795 sq., reprints it
from Olearius' edition of Philostratus' works (Lips. 1709).

Against Porphyry (kata Porphurion). Porphyry, the celebrated
Neo-Platonic philosopher, regarded by the early Fathers as the
bitterest and most dangerous enemy of the Church, wrote toward the end
of the third century a work against Christianity in fifteen books,
which was looked upon as the most powerful attack that had ever been
made, and which called forth refutations from some of the greatest
Fathers of the age: from Methodius of Tyre, Eusebius of Caesarea, and
Apollinaris of Laodicea; and even as late as the end of the fourth or
beginning of the fifth century the historian Philostorgius thought it
necessary to write another reply to it (see his H. E. X. 10).
Porphyry's work is no longer extant, but the fragments of it which
remain show us that it was both learned and skillful. He made much of
the alleged contradictions in the Gospel records, and suggested
difficulties which are still favorite weapons in the hands of skeptics.
Like the work of Porphyry, and all the other refutations of it, the
Apology of Eusebius has entirely perished. It is mentioned by Jerome
(de vir. ill. 81 and Ep. ad Magnum, S:3, Migne's ed. Ep. 70), by
Socrates (H. E. III. 23), and by Philostorgius (H. E. VIII. 14). There
is some dispute as to the number of books it contained. In his Ep. ad
Magn. Jerome says that "Eusebius et Apollinaris viginti quinque, et
triginta volumina condiderunt," which implies that it was composed of
twenty-five books; while in his de ver. ill. 81, he speaks of thirty
books, of which he had seen only twenty. Vallarsi says, however, that
all his mss. agree in reading "twenty-five" instead of "thirty" in the
latter passage, so that it would seem that the vulgar text is
incorrect.

It is impossible to form an accurate notion of the nature and quality
of Eusebius' refutation. Socrates speaks of it in terms of moderate
praise ("which [i.e. the work of Porphyry] has been ably answered by
Eusebius"), and Jerome does the same in his Ep. ad Magnum ("Alteri
[i.e. Porphyry] Methodius, Eusebius, et Apollinaris fortissime
responderunt"). At the same time the fact that Apollinaris and others
still thought it necessary to write against Porphyry would seem to show
that Eusebius' refutation was not entirely satisfactory. In truth,
Jerome (Ep. ad Pammachium et Oceanum, S:2, Migne's ed. Ep. 84) appears
to rank the work of Apollinaris above that of Eusebius, and
Philostorgius expressly states that the former far surpassed the latter
(epi polu kratein egonismenon 'Eusebi& 251; kat' autou). The date of
Eusebius' work cannot be determined. The fact that he never refers to
it, although he mentions the work of Porphyry a number of times, has
been urged by Valesius and others as proof that he did not write it
until after 325 a.d.; but it is quite possible to explain his silence,
as Lardner does, by supposing that his work was written in his earlier
years, and that afterward he felt its inferiority and did not care to
mention it. It seems, in fact, not unlikely that he wrote it as early,
or even earlier than his work against Hierocles, at any rate before his
attention was occupied with the Arian controversy and questions
connected with it.

On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients (peri tes ton palaion andron
polupaidias). This work is mentioned by Eusebius in his Praep. Evang.
VII. 8. 20 (Migne, Opera, III. 525), but by no one else, unless it be
the book to which Basil refers in his De Spir. Sancto, 29, as
Difficulties respecting the Polygamy of the Ancients. The work is no
longer extant, but we can gather from the connection in which it is
mentioned in the Praeparatio, that it aimed at accounting for the
polygamy of the Patriarchs and reconciling it with the ascetic ideal of
the Christian life which prevailed in the Church of Eusebius' lifetime.
It would therefore seem to have been written with an apologetic
purpose.

Praeparatio Evangelica (proparaskeue euangelike) and Demonstratio
Evangelica ('Euangelike apodeixis). These two treatises together
constitute Eusebius' greatest apologetic work. The former is directed
against heathen, and aims to show that the Christians are justified in
accepting the sacred books of the Hebrews and in rejecting the religion
and philosophy of the Greeks. The latter endeavors to prove from the
sacred books of the Hebrews themselves that the Christians do right in
going beyond the Jews, in accepting Jesus as their Messiah, and in
adopting another mode of life. The former is therefore in a way a
preparation for the latter, and the two together constitute a defense
of Christianity against all the world, Jews as well as heathen. In
grandeur of conception, in comprehensiveness of treatment, and in
breadth of learning, this apology undoubtedly surpasses all other
apologetic works of antiquity. Lightfoot justly says, "This great
apologetic work exhibits the same merits and defects which we find
elsewhere in Eusebius. There is the same greatness of conception marred
by the same inadequacy of execution, the same profusion of learning
combined with the same inability to control his materials, which we
have seen in his History. The divisions are not kept distinct; the
topics start up unexpectedly and out of season. But with all its faults
this is probably the most important apologetic work of the early
Church. It necessarily lacks the historical interest of the apologetic
writings of the second century; it falls far short of the
thoughtfulness and penetration which give a permanent value to Origen's
treatise against Celsus as a defense of the faith; it lags behind the
Latin apologists in rhetorical vigor and expression. But the forcible
and true conceptions which it exhibits from time to time, more
especially bearing on the theme which may be briefly designated `God in
history,' arrest our attention now, and must have impressed his
contemporaries still more strongly; while in learning and
comprehensiveness it is without a rival." The wide acquaintance with
classical literature exhibited by Eusebius in the Praeparatio is very
remarkable. Many writers are referred to whose names are known to us
from no other source, and many extracts are given which constitute our
only fragments of works otherwise totally lost. The Praeparatio thus
does for classical much what the History does for Christian literature.

A very satisfactory summary of the contents of the Praeparatio is given
at the beginning of the fifteenth book. In the first, second, and third
books, the author exposes the absurdities of heathen mythology, and
attacks the allegorical theology of the Neo-Platonists; in the fourth
and fifth books he discusses the heathen oracles; in the sixth he
refutes the doctrine of fate; in the seventh he passes over to the
Hebrews, devoting the next seven books to an exposition of the
excellence of their system, and to a demonstration of the proposition
that Moses and the prophets lived before the greatest Greek writers,
and that the latter drew their knowledge from the former; in the
fourteenth and fifteenth books he exposes the contradictions among
Greek philosophers and the vital errors in their systems, especially in
that of the Peripatetics. The Praeparatio is complete in fifteen books,
all of which are still extant.

The Demonstratio consisted originally of twenty books (see Jerome's de
vir. ill. 81, and Photius' Bibl. 10). Of these only ten are extant, and
even in the time of Nicephores Callistus no more were known, for he
gives the number of the books as ten (H. E. VI. 37). There exists also
a fragment of the fifteenth book, which was discovered and printed by
Mai (Script. vet. nova coll. I. 2, p. 173). In the first book, which is
introductory, Eusebius shows why the Christians pursue a mode of life
different from that of the Jews, drawing a distinction between
Hebraism, the religion of all pious men from the beginning, and
Judaism, the special system of the Jews, and pointing out that
Christianity is a continuation of the former, but a rejection of the
latter, which as temporary has passed away. In the second book he shows
that the calling of the Gentiles and the repudiation of the Jews are
foretold in Scripture. In books three to nine he discusses the
humanity, divinity, incarnation, and earthly life of the Saviour,
showing that all were revealed in the prophets. In the remainder of the
work we may assume that the same general plan was followed, and that
Christ's death, resurrection, and ascension, and the spread of his
Church, were the subjects discussed in this as in nearly all works of
the kind.

There is much dispute as to the date of these two works. Stroth and
Cave place them after the Council of Nicaea, while Valesius, Lightfoot,
and others, assign them to the ante-Nicene period. In two passages in
the History Eusebius has been commonly supposed to refer to the
Demonstratio (H. E. I. 2 and 6), but it is probable that the first, and
quite likely the second also, refers to the Eclogae Proph. We can,
therefore, base no argument upon those passages. But in Praep. Evang.
XII. 10 (Opera, III. 969) there is a reference to the persecution,
which seems clearly to imply that it was still continuing; and in the
Demonstratio (III. 5 and IV. 6; Opera, IV. 213 and 307), which was
written after the Praeparatio, are still more distinct indications of
the continuance of the persecution. On the other hand, in V. 3 and VI.
20 (Opera, IV. 364 and 474) there are passages which imply that the
persecution has come to an end. It seems necessary then to conclude,
with Lightfoot, that the Demonstratio was begun during the persecution,
but not completed until peace had been established. The Praeparatio,
which was completed before the Demonstratio was begun (see the
prooemium to the latter), must have been finished during the
persecution. It contains in X. 9 (Opera, III. 807) a reference to the
Chronicle as an already published work (see above, p. 31).

The Praeparatio and Demonstratio are found in Migne's edition of the
Opera, III. and IV. 9 sq. A more recent text is that of Dindorf in
Teubner's series, 1867. The Praeparatio has been published separately
by Heinichen, 2 vols., Lips. 1842, and by Gaisford, 4 vols., Oxon.
1843. The latter contains a full critical apparatus with Latin
translation and notes, and is the most useful edition which we have.
Seguier in 1846 published a French translation with notes. The latter
are printed in Latin in Migne's edition of the Opera, III. 1457 sq. The
French translation I have not seen.

The Demonstratio was also published by Gaisford in 2 vols., Oxon. 1852,
with critical apparatus and Latin translation. Haenell has made the two
works the subject of a monograph entitled De Eusebio Caesariensi
religionis Christianae Defensore (Gottingae, 1843) which I know only
from the mention of it by Stein and Lightfoot.

Praeparatio Ecclesiastica ('Ekklesiastike Proparaskeue), and
Demonstratio Ecclesiastica ('Ekklesiastike 'Apodeixis). These two works
are no longer extant. We know of the former only from Photius'
reference to it in Bibl. 11, of the latter from his mention of it in
Bibl. 12.

Lightfoot says that the latter is referred to also in the Jus
Graeco-Romanum (lib. IV. p. 295; ed. Leunclav.). We know nothing about
the works (except that the first according to Photius contained
extracts), and should be tempted to think them identical with the
Praeparatio and Demonstratio Evang. were it not that Photius expressly
mentions the two latter in another part of his catalogue (Bibl. 10).
Lightfoot supposes that the two lost works did for the society what the
Praep. and Dem. Evang. do for the doctrines of which the society is the
depositary, and he suggests that those portions of the Theophania (Book
IV.) which relate to the foundation of the Church may have been adopted
from the Dem. Ecclesiastica, as other portions of the work (Book V.)
are adopted from the Dem. Evang.

If there is a reference in the Praep. Evang. I. 3 (Opera, III. 33) to
the Demonstratio Eccles., as Lightfoot thinks there may be, and as is
quite possible, the latter work, and consequently in all probability
the Praep. Eccles. also, must have been written before 313 a.d.

Two Books of Objection and Defense ('Elenchou kai 'Apologias logoi
duo). These are no longer extant, but are mentioned by Photius in his
Bibl. 13. We gather from Photius' language that two editions of the
work were extant in his time. The books, as Photius clearly indicates,
contained an apology for Christianity against the attacks of the
heathen, and not, as Cave supposed, a defense of the author against the
charge of Arianism. The tract mentioned by Gelasius of Cyzicus (see
below, p. 64) is therefore not to be identified with this work, as Cave
imagined that it might be.

Theophaniaor Divine Manifestation (theophEURneia). A Syriac version of
this work is extant in the same ms. which contains the Martyrs of
Palestine, and was first published by Lee in 1842. In 1843 the same
editor issued an English translation with notes and extended
prolegomena (Cambridge, 1 vol.). The original work is no longer extant
in its entirety, but numerous Greek fragments were collected and
published by Mai in 1831 and 1833 (Script. vet. nov. coll. I. and
VIII.), and again with additions in 1847 (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 110
and 310; reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 607-690. Migne does not give
the Syriac version). The manuscript which contains the Syriac version
was written in 411, and Lee thinks that the translation itself may have
been made even during the lifetime of Eusebius. At any rate it is very
old and, so far as it is possible to judge, seems to have reproduced
the sense of the original with comparative accuracy. The subject of the
work is the manifestation of God in the incarnation of the Word. It
aims to give, with an apologetic purpose, a brief exposition of the
divine authority and influence of Christianity. It is divided into five
books which handle successively the subject and the recipients of the
revelation, that is, the Logos on the one hand, and man on the other;
the necessity of the revelation; the proof of it drawn from its
effects; the proof of it drawn from its fulfillment of prophecy;
finally, the common objections brought by the heathen against Christ's
character and wonderful works. Lee says of the work: "As a brief
exposition of Christianity, particularly of its Divine authority, and
amazing influence, it has perhaps never been surpassed." "When we
consider the very extensive range of inquiry occupied by our author,
the great variety both of argument and information which it contains,
and the small space which it occupies; we cannot, I think, avoid coming
to the conclusion, that it is a very extraordinary work, and one which
is as suitable to our own times as it was to those for which it was
written. Its chief excellency is, that it is argumentative, and that
its arguments are well grounded, and logically conducted."

The Theophania contains much that is found also in other works of
Eusebius. Large portions of the first, second, and third books are
contained in the Oratio de Laudibus Constantini, nearly the whole of
the fifth book is given in the Dem. Evang., while many passages occur
in the Praep. Evang.

These coincidences assist us in determining the date of the work. That
it was written after persecution had ceased and peace was restored to
the Church, is clear from II. 76, III. 20, 79, V. 52. Lee decided that
it was composed very soon after the close of the Diocletian
persecution, but Lightfoot has shown conclusively (p. 333) from the
nature of the parallels between it and other writings of Eusebius, that
it must have been written toward the end of his life, certainly later
than the De Laud. Const. (335 a.d.), and indeed it is not improbable
that it remained unfinished at the time of his death.

III. Polemic Works.

Defense of Origen ('Apologia huper 'Origenous). This was the joint work
of Eusebius and Pamphilus, as is distinctly stated by Eusebius himself
in his H. E. VI. 33, by Socrates, H. E. III. 7, by the anonymous
collector of the Synodical Epistles (Ep. 198), and by Photius, Bibl.
118. The last writer informs us that the work consisted of six books,
the first five of which were written by Eusebius and Pamphilus while
the latter was in prison, the last book being added by the former after
Pamphilus' death (see above, p. 9). There is no reason to doubt the
statement of Photius, and we may therefore assign the first five books
to the years 307-309, and assume that the sixth was written soon
afterward. The Defense has perished, with the exception of the first
book, which was translated by Rufinus (Rufin. ad Hieron. I. 582), and
is still extant in his Latin version. Rufinus ascribed this book
expressly to Pamphilus, and Pamphilus' name alone appears in the
translation. Jerome (Contra Ruf. I. 8; II. 15, 23; III. 12) maintains
that the whole work was written by Eusebius, not by Pamphilus, and
accuses Rufinus of having deliberately substituted the name of the
martyr Pamphilus for that of the Arianizing Eusebius in his translation
of the work, in order to secure more favorable acceptance for the
teachings of Origen. Jerome's unfairness and dishonesty in this matter
have been pointed out by Lightfoot (p. 340). In spite of his endeavor
to saddle the whole work upon Eusebius, it is certain that Pamphilus
was a joint author of it, and it is quite probable that Rufinus was
true to his original in ascribing to Pamphilus all the explanations
which introduce and connect the extracts from Origen, which latter
constitute the greater part of the book. Eusebius may have done most of
his work in connection with the later books.

The work was intended as a defense of Origen against the attacks of his
opponents (see Eusebius' H. E. VI. 33, and the Preface to the Defense
itself). According to Socrates (H. E. VI. 13), Methodius, Eustathius,
Apollinaris, and Theophilus all wrote against Origen. Of these only
Methodius had written before the composition of the Defense, and he was
expressly attacked in the sixth book of that work, according to Jerome
(Contra Ruf. I. 11). The wide opposition aroused against Origen was
chiefly in consequence not of his personal character, but of his
theological views. The Apology, therefore, seems to have been devoted
in the main to a defense of those views over against the attacks of the
men that held and taught opposite opinions, and may thus be regarded as
in some sense a regular polemic. The extant book is devoted principally
to a discussion of Origen's views on the Trinity and the Incarnation.
It is not printed in Migne's edition of Eusebius' Opera, but is
published in the various editions of Origen's works (in Lommatzsch's
edition, XXIV. 289-412). For further particulars in regard to the work,
see Delarue's introduction to it (Lommatzsch, XXIV. 263 sq.), and
Lightfoot's article on Eusebius, pp. 340 and 341.

Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra (kata Markellou tou 'Ankuras
episkopou). The occasion of this work has been already described (see
p. 25), and is explained by Eusebius himself in Book II. chap. 4. The
work must have been written soon after the Council at which Marcellus
was condemned. It aims simply to expose his errors, exegetical as well
as theological. The work consists of two books, and is still extant
(Opera, VI. 707-824).

On the Theology of the Church, a Refutation of Marcellus (hoi pros
MEURrkellon zlenchoi peri tes ekklesiastikes Theologias). The occasion
of this work is stated in the first chapter. In the previous work
Eusebius had aimed merely to expose the opinions of Marcellus, but in
this he devotes himself to their refutation, fearing that some might be
led astray by their length and plausibility. The work, which consists
of three books, is still extant, and is given by Migne in the Opera,
VI. 825-1046. Both it and the preceding are published with the Contra
Hieroclem in Gaisford's Euseb. Pamph. contra Hieroclem et Marcellum,
Oxon. 1852. Zahn has written a valuable monograph entitled Marcellus
von Ancyra (Gotha, 1867).

Against the Manicheans. Epiphanius (Haer. LXVI. 21) mentions, among
other refutations of the Manicheans, one by our Eusebius. The work is
referred to nowhere else, and it is possible that Epiphanius was
mistaken in his reference, or that the refutation he has in mind formed
only a part of some other work, but we are hardly justified in
asserting, as Lightfoot does, that the work cannot have existed.

IV. Dogmatic Works.

General Elementary Introduction (;;E katholou stoicheiodes eisagoge).
This work consisted of ten books, as we learn from a reference to it in
the Eclogae Propheticae, IV. 35. It was apparently a general
introduction to the study of theology, and covered a great variety of
subjects. Five brief fragments have been preserved, all of them
apparently from the first book, which must have dealt largely with
general principles of ethics. The fragments were published by Mai
(Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316), and are reprinted by Migne (Opera, IV.
1271 sq.). In addition to these fragments, the sixth, seventh, eighth,
and ninth books of the work are extant under the title:

Prophetical Extracts (Prophetikai 'Eklogai). Although this formed a
part of the larger work, it is complete in itself, and circulated
independently of the rest of the Introduction. It contains extracts of
prophetical passages from the Old Testament relating to the person and
work of Christ, accompanied by explanatory notes. It is divided into
four books, the first containing extracts from the historical
Scriptures, the second from the Psalms, the third from the other
poetical books and from the prophets, the fourth from Isaiah alone. The
personality of the Logos is the main topic of the work, which is thus
essentially dogmatic, rather than apologetic, as it might at first
glance seem to be. It was composed during the persecution, which is
clearly referred to in Book I. chap. 8 as still raging; it must have
been written therefore between 303 and 313. The date of these books, of
course, fixes the date of the General Introduction, of which they
formed a part. The Eclogae are referred to in the History, I. 2. On the
other hand, they mention the Chronicle as a work already written (I. 1:
Opera, p. 1023); a reference which goes to prove that there were two
editions of the Chronicle (see above, p. 31). The four books of the
Prophetical Extracts were first published by Gaisford in 1842 (Oxford)
from a Vienna ms. The ms. is mutilated in many places, and the
beginning, including the title of the work, is wanting. Migne has
reprinted Gaisford's edition in the Opera, IV. 1017 sq.

On the Paschal Festival (peri tes tou pEURscha he& 231;rtes). This
work, as Eusebius informs us in his Vita Const. IV. 34, was addressed
to the Emperor Constantine, who commends it very highly in an epistle
to Eusebius preserved in the Vita Const. IV. 35. From this epistle we
learn, moreover, that the work had been translated into Latin. It is no
longer extant in its entirety, but a considerable fragment of it was
discovered by Mai in Nicetas' Catena on Luke, and published by him in
his Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. p. 208 sq. The extant portion of it contains
twelve chapters, devoted partly to a discussion of the nature of the
Passover and its typical significance, partly to an account of the
settlement of the paschal question at the Council of Nicaea, and partly
to an argument against the necessity of celebrating the paschal feast
at the time of the Jewish Passover, based on the ground that Christ
himself did not keep the Passover on the same day as the Jews.

Jerome, although he does not mention this work in his catalogue of
Eusebius' writings (de vir. ill. 81), elsewhere (ib. 61) states that
Eusebius composed a paschal canon with a cycle of nineteen years. This
cycle may have been published (as Lightfoot remarks) as a part of the
writing under discussion. The date of the work cannot be determined
with exactness. It was written after the Council of Nicaea, and, as
would seem from the connection in which it is mentioned in the Vita
Constantini, before the Emperor's tricennalia (335 a.d.), but not very
long before. The extant fragment, as published by Mai, is reprinted by
Migne in the Opera, VI. 693-706.

V. Critical and Exegetical Works.

Biblical Texts. We learn from Jerome (Praef. in librum Paralip.) that
Eusebius and Pamphilus published a number of copies of Origen's edition
of the LXX., that is, of the fifth column of the Hexapla. A colophon
found in a Vatican ms., and given in facsimile in Migne's Opera, IV.
875, contains the following account of their labors (the translation is
Lightfoot's): "It was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla, and
was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself, which also had been
corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting; whence I,
Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected [this
copy]." Compare also Field's Hexapla, I. p. xcix.

Taylor, in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, III. p. 21, says:
"The whole work [i.e. the Hexapla] was too massive for multiplication;
but many copies of its fifth column alone were issued from Caesarea
under the direction of Pamphilus the martyr and Eusebius, and this
recension of the LXX. came into common use. Some of the copies issued
contained also marginal scholia, which gave inter alia a selection of
readings from the remaining versions in the Hexapla. The oldest extant
ms. of this recension is the Leiden Codex Sarravianus of the fourth or
fifth century." These editions of the LXX. must have been issued before
the year 309, when Pamphilus suffered martyrdom, and in all probability
before 307, when he was imprisoned (see Lardner's Credibility, Part II.
chap. 72.

In later years we find Eusebius again engaged in the publication of
copies of the Scriptures. According to the Vita Const. IV. 36, 37, the
Emperor wrote to Eusebius, asking him to prepare fifty sumptuous copies
of the Scriptures for use in his new Constantinopolitan churches. The
commission was carefully executed, and the mss. prepared at great cost.
It has been thought that among our extant mss. may be some of these
copies which were produced under Eusebius' supervision, but this is
extremely improbable (see Lightfoot, p. 334).

Ten Evangelical Canons, with the Letter to Carpianus prefixed (kanones
deka; Canones decem harmoniae evangeliorum praemissa ad Carpianum
epistola). Ammonius of Alexandria early in the third century had
constructed a harmony of the Gospels, in which, taking Matthew as the
standard, he placed alongside of that Gospel the parallel passages from
the three others. Eusebius' work was suggested by this Harmony, as he
tells us in his epistle to Carpianus. An inconvenient feature of
Ammonius' work was that only the Gospel of Matthew could be read
continuously, the sequence of the other Gospels being broken in order
to bring their parallel sections into the order followed by Matthew.
Eusebius, desiring to remedy this defect, constructed his work on a
different principle. He made a table of ten canons, each containing a
list of passages as follows: Canon I. passages common to all four
Gospels; II. those common to Matthew, Mark, and Luke; III. those common
to Matt., Luke, and John; IV. those common to Matt., Mark, and John; V.
those common to Matthew and Luke; VI. those common to Matt. and Mark;
VII. those common to Matt. and John; VIII. those common to Luke and
Mark; IX. those common to Luke and John; X. those peculiar to each
Gospel: first to Matthew, second to Mark, third to Luke, and fourth to
John.

Each Gospel was then divided into sections, which were numbered
continuously. The length of the section was determined, not by the
sense, but by the table of canons, each section comprising a passage
common to four, to three, to two Gospels, or peculiar to itself, as the
case might be. A single section therefore might comprise even less than
a verse, or it might cover more than a chapter. The sections were
numbered in black, and below each number was placed a second figure in
red, indicating the canon to which the section belonged. Upon glancing
at that canon the reader would find at once the numbers of the parallel
sections in the other Gospels, and could turn to them readily. The
following is a specimen of a few lines of the first canon:--

[Omitted]

Thus, opposite a certain passage in John, the reader finds ib (12)
written, and beneath it, A (1). He therefore turns to the first canon
(A) and finds that sections ia(11) in Matthew, d (4) in Mark, and i(10)
in Luke are parallel with ib in John. The advantage and convenience of
such a system are obvious, and the invention of it shows great
ingenuity. It has indeed never been superseded, and the sections and
canons are still indicated in the margins of many of our best Greek
Testaments (e.g., in those of Tregelles and of Tischendorf). The date
of the construction of these canons it is quite impossible to
determine. For further particulars in regard to them, see Lightfoot's
article on Eusebius, p. 334 sq., and Scrivener's Introduction to the
Criticism of the New Testament, 2d ed. p. 54 sq. The canons, with the
letter to Carpianus prefixed, are given by Migne, Opera, IV. 1275-1292.

Gospel Questions and Solutions. This work consists of two parts, or of
two separate works combined. The first bears the title Gospel Questions
and Solutions addressed to Stephanus (pros Stephanon peri ton en
euangeliois zetemEURton kai luseon), and is referred to by Eusebius in
his Dem. Evang. VII. 3, as Questions and Solutions on the Genealogy of
our Saviour (ton eis ten genealogian tou soteros hemon zetemEURton kai
luseon). The second part is entitled Gospel Questions and Solutions
addressed to Marinus (pros Marinon). The first work consisted of two
books, we learn from the opening of the second work. In that passage,
referring to the previous work, Eusebius says that having discussed
there the difficulties which beset the beginning of the Gospels, he
will now proceed to consider questions concerning the latter part of
them, the intermediate portions being omitted. He thus seems to regard
the two works as in a sense forming parts of one whole. In his de vir
ill. 81, Jerome mentions among the writings of Eusebius one On the
Discrepancy of the Gospels (De Evangeliorum Diaphonia), and in his
Comm. in Matt. chap. I. vers. 16, he refers to Eusebius' libri
diaphonias euangelion. Ebedjesu also remarks, "Eusebius Caesariensis
composuit librum solutionis contradictionum evangelii." In the
sixteenth century there were found in Sicily, according to the
announcement of Latino Latini, "libri tres Eusebii Caesariensis de
Evangeliorum diaphonia," but nothing more has been heard or seen of
this Sicilian ms. There can be no doubt that the work referred to under
the title De Evangeliorum Diaphonia is identical with the Gospel
Questions and Solutions, for the discrepancies in the Gospels occupy a
considerable space in the Questions and Solutions as we have it, and
the word diaphonia occurs frequently. The three books mentioned by
Latino Latini were therefore the two books addressed to Stephanus which
Eusebius himself refers to, and the one book addressed to Marinus. The
complete work is no longer extant, but an epitome of it was discovered
and published by Mai, together with numerous fragments of the
unabridged work, two of them in Syriac (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 217 sq.;
reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 879-1016). In the epitome the work
addressed to Stephanus consists of sixteen chapters, and the division
into two books is not retained. The work addressed to Marinus consists
of only four chapters.

The work purports to have been written in answer to questions and
difficulties suggested by Stephanus and Marinus, who are addressed by
Eusebius in terms of affection and respect. The first work is devoted
chiefly to a discussion of the genealogies of Christ, as given by
Matthew and Luke; the second work deals with the apparent discrepancies
between the accounts of the resurrection as given by the different
evangelists. Eusebius does not always reach a solution of the
difficulties, but his work is suggestive and interesting. The question
as to the date of the work is complicated by the fact that there is in
the Dem. Evang. VII. 3 a reference to the Questions and Solutions
addressed to Stephanus, while in the epitome of the latter work
(Quaest. VII. S:7) there is a distinct reference to the Demonstratio
Evang. This can be satisfactorily explained only by supposing, with
Lightfoot, that the Epitome was made at a later date than the original
work, and that then Eusebius inserted this reference to the
Demonstratio. We are thus led to assume two editions of this work, as
of the others of Eusebius' writings, the second edition being a revised
abridgement of the first. The first edition, at least of the
Quaestiones ad Stephanum, must have been published before the
Demonstratio Evangelica. We cannot fix the date of the epitome, nor of
the Quaestiones ad Marinum.

Commentary on the Psalms (eis tous psalmous). This commentary is extant
entire as far as the 118th psalm, but from that point to the end only
fragments of it have been preserved. It was first published in 1707, by
Montfaucon, who, however, knew nothing of the fragments of the latter
part of the work. These were discovered and published by Mai, in 1847
(Bibl. Nov. Patrum, IV. 65 sq.), and the entire extant work, including
these fragments, is printed by Migne, Opera, V. and VI. 9-76. According
to Lightfoot, notices of extant Syriac extracts from it are found in
Wright's Catal. Syr. mss. Brit. Mus. pp. 35 sq. and 125. Jerome (de
vir. ill. 96 and Ep. ad Vigilantium, S:2; Migne's ed. Ep. 61) informs
us that Eusebius of Vercellae translated this commentary into Latin,
omitting the heretical passages. This version is no longer extant. The
commentary had a high reputation among the Fathers, and justly so. It
is distinguished for its learning, industry, and critical acumen. The
Hexapla is used with great diligence, and the author frequently
corrects the received LXX. text of his day upon the authority of one of
the other versions. The work betrays an acquaintance with Hebrew,
uncommon among the Fathers, but by no means extensive or exact.
Eusebius devotes considerable attention to the historical relations of
the Psalms, and exhibits an unusual degree of good judgment in their
treatment, but the allegorical method of the school of Origen is
conspicuous, and leads him into the mystical extravagances so common to
patristic exegesis.

The work must have been written after the close of the persecution and
the death of the persecutors (in Psal. XXXVI. 12). In another passage
(in Psal. LXXXVII. 11) there seems to be a reference to the discovery
of the site of the Holy Sepulchre and the erection of Constantine's
basilica upon it (see Vita Const. III. 28, 30, &c.). The basilica was
dedicated in the year 335 (see above, p. 24), and the site of the
sepulchre was not discovered until the year 326, or later (see
Lightfoot, p. 336). The commentary must have been written apparently
after the basilica was begun, and probably after its completion. If so,
it is to be placed among the very latest of Eusebius' works.

Commentary on Isaiah (hupomnemata eis ;;Esaian). This work is also
extant almost entire, and was first published in 1706, by Montfaucon
(Coll. Nova Patrum et Script. Graec. II.; reprinted by Migne, Opera,
VI. 77-526). In his de vir. ill. 81 Jerome refers to it as containing
ten books (in Isaiam libri decem), but in the preface to his Comment.
in Isaiam he speaks of it as composed of fifteen (Eusebius quoque
Pamphili juxta historicam explanationem quindecim edidit volumina). In
its present form there is no trace of a division into books. The
commentary is marked by the same characteristics which were noticed in
connection with the one on the Psalms, though it does not seem to have
acquired among the ancients so great a reputation as that work. It must
have been written after the close of the persecution (in Is. XLIV. 5),
and apparently after the accession of Constantine to sole power (in Is.
XLIX. 23 compared with Vita Const. IV. 28). If the commentary on the
Psalms was written toward the close of Eusebius' life, as assumed
above, it is natural to conclude that the present work preceded that.

Commentary on Luke (eis to kata Loukan euallelion). This work is no
longer extant, but considerable fragments of it exist and have been
published by Mai (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 159 sq.; reprinted by Migne,
Opera, VI. 529-606). Although the fragments are all drawn from Catenae
on Luke, there are many passages which seem to have been taken from a
commentary on Matthew (see the notes of the editor). A number of
extracts from the work are found in Eusebius' Theophania (see Mai's
introduction to his fragments of the latter work).

The date of the commentary cannot be fixed with certainty, but I am
inclined to place it before the persecution of Diocletian, for the
reason that there appears in the work, so far as I have discovered, no
hint of a persecution, although the passages expounded offer many
opportunities for such a reference, which it is difficult to see how
the author could have avoided making if a persecution were in progress
while he was writing; and further, because in discussing Christ's
prophecies of victory and dominion over the whole world, no reference
is made to the triumph gained by the Church in the victories of
Constantine. A confirmation of this early date may be found in the
extreme simplicity of the exegesis, which displays neither the wide
learning, nor the profound study that mark the commentaries on the
Psalms and on Isaiah.

Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians. This work is no
longer extant, and we know of it only from a reference in Jerome's Ep.
ad Pammachium, S:3 (Migne's ed. Ep. 49): "Origenes, Dionysius, Pierius,
Eusebius Caesariensis, Didymus, Apollinaris latissime hanc Epistolam
interpretati sunt."

Exegetical Fragments. Mai has published brief fragments containing
expositions of passages from Proverbs (Bibl. Nova Patrum, IV. 316;
reprinted by Migne, Opera, VI. 75-78), from Daniel (ib. p. 314; Migne,
VI. 525-528), and from the Epistle to the Hebrews (ib. p. 207; Migne,
VI. 605). Fabricius mentions also fragments from a commentary on the
Song of Songs as published by Meursius, and says that other
commentaries are referred to by Montfaucon in his Epistola de
Therapeutis, p. 151. We have no references in the works of the ancients
to any such commentaries, so far as I am aware, and it is quite
possible that the various fragments given by Mai, as well as those
referred to by Fabricius may have been taken not from continuous
commentaries, but from Eusebius' General Elementary Introduction, or
others of his lost works. According to Migne (VI. 527) some Greek
Catenae published by Cramer in Oxford in the year 1884 contain
extensive fragments on Matthew and John, which, however, have been
taken from Eusebius' Quaest. Evang. Other fragments in Catenae on the
same Evangelists and on Mark, have been taken, according to Migne, from
the Quaestiones ad Stephanum, or from the Commentary on Luke.

It is, however, quite possible, as it seems to me, that Eusebius wrote
a commentary on Daniel. At any rate, the exegetical fragments which we
have, taken with the extended discussions of certain passages found in
the Dem. Evang. VIII. 2 and in the Eclogae Proph. III. 40 sq., show
that he expounded at one time or another a considerable portion of the
book.

VI. Biblical Dictionaries.

Interpretation of the Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures. This
work is no longer extant, but is known to us from Eusebius' reference
to it in the preface to his work On the Names of Places, where he
writes as follows: ton ana ten oikoumenen ethnon epi ten hellEURda
phonen metabalon tas en te thei& 139; graphe keimenas hebraiois onomasi
prosreseis. Jerome, in the preface to his Latin version of the same
work, also refers to it in the following words: "...diversarum vocabula
nationum, quae quomodo olim apud Hebraeos dicta sint, et nunc dicantur,
exposuit." No other ancient authority mentions the work so far as I am
aware.

Chorography of Ancient Judea with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes.
This work too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius in the same
preface in the following words: tes pEURlai 'Ioudaias apo pEURses
Biblou katagraphen pepoiemenos kai tas en aute ton dodeka phulon
diairon klerous. Jerome (ib.) says: "...Chorographiam terrae Judaeae,
et distinctas tribuum sortes ...laboravit."

It is remarked by Fabricius that this work is evidently intended by
Ebedjesu in his catalogue, where he mentions among the writings of
Eusebius a Librum de Figura Mundi (cf. Assemani's Bibl. Orient. III. p.
18, note 7).

A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple, accompanied with Memoirs
relating to the Various Localities. This too is lost, but is referred
to by Eusebius (ib.) in the following words: hos en graphes tupo tes
pEURlai diaboetou metropoleos autes (lego de ten ;;Ierousalem) tou te
en aute hierou ten eikona diacharEURxas meta paratheseos ton eis tous
tupous hupomnemEURton. Jerome (ib.) says: "ipsius quoque Jerusalem
templique in ea cum brevissima expositione picturam, ad extremum in hoc
opusculo laboravit."

On the Names of Places in Holy Scripture (peri ton topikon onomEURton
ton en te thei& 139; graphe). In Jerome's version this work bears the
title Liber de Situ et Nominibus Locorum Hebraicorum, but in his de
vir. ill. 81, he refers to it as topikon, liber unus, and so it is
commonly called simply Topica. It is still extant, both in the original
Greek and in a revised and partly independent Latin version by Jerome.
Both are published by Vallarsi in Hieronymi Opera, III. 122 sq. Migne,
in his edition of Eusebius' works, omits the Topica and refers to his
edition of Jerome's works, where, however, he gives only Jerome's
version, not the original Greek (III. 859-928). The best editions of
the Greek text are by Larsow and Parthey (Euseb. Pamph. Episc. Caes.
Onomasticon, &c., Berolini, 1862), and by Lagarde (Onomastica Sacra, I.
207-304, Gottingae, 1870). The work aims to give, in the original
language, in alphabetical order, the names of the cities, villages,
mountains, rivers, &c., mentioned in the Scriptures, together with
their modern designations and brief descriptions of each. The work is
thus of the same character as a modern dictionary or Biblical
geography. The other three works were narrower than this one in their
scope, but seem also to have been arranged somewhat on the dictionary
plan. The work is dedicated to Paulinus, a fact which leads us to place
its composition before 325 a.d., when Paulinus was already dead (see
below, p. 369). Jerome, in the preface to his version, says that
Eusebius wrote the work after his History and Chronicle. We are to
conclude, then, either that the work was published in 324 or early in
325, within a very few months after the History, or, what is more
probable, that Jerome is mistaken in his statement. He is proverbially
careless and inaccurate, and Eusebius, neither in his preface--from
which Jerome largely quotes in his own--nor in the work itself, gives
any hint of the fact that his History and Chronicle were already
written.

On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets (peri tes tou bibliou
ton propheton onomasias kai apo merous ti periechei hekastos). This
work contains brief accounts of the several prophets and notes the
subjects of their prophecies. It is thus, so far as it goes, a sort of
biographical dictionary. It was first published by Curterius in his
Procopii Sophistae Christinae variarum in Isaiam Prophetam
commentationum epitome (Paris, 1850, under the title De vitis
Prophetarum, by which it is commonly known. We have no means of
determining the date of its composition. Curterius' text has been
reprinted by Migne, Opera, IV. 1261-1272.

VII. Orations.

Panegyric on the Building of the Churches, addressed to Paulinus,
Bishop of Tyre (Panegurikos epi te ton ekklesion oikodome, Paulino
Turion episkopo prospephonemenos). This oration was delivered at the
dedication of Paulinus' new church in Tyre, to which reference has
already been made (see above, p. 11). It has been preserved in
Eusebius' History, Book X. chap. 4 (see below, p. 370. sq.).

Oration delivered at the Vicennalia of Constantine. Eusebius refers to
this in the Preface to his Vita Constantini as eikosaeterikoi humnoi.
It is to be identified with the oration delivered at the opening of the
Council of Nicaea (Vita Const. III. 11), as stated above, on p. 19. It
is unfortunately no longer extant.

Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour. In his Vita Const. IV. 33
Eusebius informs us that he delivered an oration on this subject (amphi
tou soteriou mnematos logos) in the presence of the Emperor at
Constantinople. In the same work, IV. 46, he says that he wrote a
description of the church of the Saviour and of his sepulchre, as well
as of the splendid presents given by the Emperor for their adornment.
This description he gave in a special work which he addressed to the
Emperor (en oikei& 251; sungrEURmmati paradontes, auto basilei
prosephonesamen). If these two are identical, as has always been
assumed, the Oration on the Sepulchre must have been delivered in 335,
when Eusebius went to Constantinople, just after the dedication of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (see above, p. 23), and just
before the Oratio deo laudibus Constantini (see ib. IV. 46). That the
two are identical has always been assumed, and seems most probable. At
the same time it is worthy of notice that in IV. 33 Eusebius speaks as
if he returned to Caesarea immediately after delivering his oration,
and gives no hint of the delivery of his De laud. Const. at that time.
It is noticeable also that he speaks in IV. 46 of a work (sungramma)
not of an oration (logos), and that in IV. 45 he mentions the fact that
he has described the splendid edifice and gifts of the Emperor in
writing (dia grEURmmatos), which would seem to imply something else
than an address. Finally, it is to be observed that, whereas, in IV.
46, he expressly refers to the church erected by Constantine and to his
rich gifts in connection with its construction, in IV. 33 he refers
only to the sepulchre. It appears to me, in fact, quite possible that
Eusebius may be referring to two entirely different compositions, the
one an oration delivered after the discovery of the sepulchre and
before the Emperor had built the church (perhaps containing the
suggestion of such a building), the other a descriptive work written
after the completion of that edifice. I present this only as a
possibility, for I realize that against it may be urged the
unlikelihood that two separate works should have been composed by
Eusebius upon subjects so nearly, if not quite, identical, and also the
probability that, if there were two, both, and not one only, would have
been attached to the end of the Vita Const. with the De laud Const.
(see IV. 46). Neither the Oration on the Sepulchre of the Saviour nor
the Work on the Church and the Sepulchre (whether the two are the same
or not) is now extant.

Oration delivered at the Tricennalia of Constantine (eis Konstantinon
ton basilea triakontaeterikos), commonly known under the title Oratio
de laudibus Constantini. In his Vita Const. IV. 46, Eusebius promised
to append this oration, together with the writing On the Church and the
Sepulchre, to that work. The de laudibus is still found at the end of
the mss. of the Vita, while the other writing is lost. It was delivered
in Constantinople in 335 on the occasion of the Emperor's tricennalia,
very soon after the dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in
Jerusalem (see above, p. 25). It is highly panegyrical, but contains a
great deal of theology, especially in regard to the person and work of
the Logos. Large portions of it were afterward incorporated into the
Vita Constantini and the Theophania. The oration is published in most,
if not all, editions of the Vita Constantini; in Migne, Opera, II.
1315-1440.

Oration in Praise of the Martyrs. This oration is mentioned in the
catalogue of Ebedjesu (et orationem de laudibus eorum [i.e. Martyrum
Occidentalium]; see Assemani, Bibl. Orient. III. p. 19), and, according
to Lightfoot, is still extant in a Syriac version, which has been
published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, N. S., Vol. V. p. 403
sq., with an English translation by B. H. Cowper, ib. VI. p. 129 sq.
Lightfoot finds in it an indication that it was delivered at Antioch,
but pronounces it of little value or importance.

On the Failure of Rain. This is no longer extant, and is known to us
only from a reference in the catalogue of Ebedjesu (et orationem de
defectu pluviae; see Assemani, ib.).

VIII. Epistles.

To Alexander, bishop of Alexandria. The purpose and the character of
this epistle have been already discussed (see above). A fragment of it
has been preserved in the Proceedings of the Second Council of Nicaea,
Act VI., Tom. V. (Labbei et Cossartii Conc. VII. col. 497). For a
translation of the epistle, see below. This and the following epistle
were written after the outbreak of the Arian controversy, but before
the Nicene Council.

To Euphration, bishop of Balaneae in Syria, likewise a strong opponent
of the Arians (see Athan. de Fuga, 3; Hist. Ar. ad Mon. 5). Athanasius
states that this epistle declared plainly that Christ is not God
(Athan. de Synod. 17). A brief fragment of it has been preserved in the
Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (l.c.), which probably contains
the very passage to which Athanasius refers. Upon the interpretation
and significance of the fragment, see above.

To Constantia Augusta, the sister of Constantine and wife of Licinius.
Constantia had written to Eusebius requesting him to send her a certain
likeness of Christ of which she had heard. Eusebius, in this epistle,
rebukes her, and speaks strongly against the use of such
representations, on the ground that it tends toward idolatry. The tone
of the letter is admirable. Numerous fragments of it have been
discovered, so that we have it now almost entire. It is printed in
Migne, Opera, II. 1545-1550. We have no means of ascertaining the date
at which it was written.

To the Church of Caesarea. This epistle was written from Nicaea in 325
a.d., during or immediately after the Council. Its purpose and
character have been discussed above on p. 16 sq., where a translation
of it is given. The epistle is preserved by Athanasius (de Decret. Syn.
Nic. app.); by Socrates, H. E. I. 8; by Theodoret, H. E. I. 11, and
others. It is printed by Migne, Opera, II. 1535-1544.

In the Acts of the Second Council of Nicaea (l.c.) we find a mention of
"all the epistles" of Eusebius, as if many were at that time extant. We
know, however, only of those which have been mentioned above.

IX. Spurious or Doubtful Works.

Fourteen Latin opuscula were discovered and published by Sirmond in
1643, and have been frequently reprinted (Migne, Opera, VI. 1047-1208).
They are of a theological character, and bear the following titles:--

De fide adv. Sabellium, libri duo.

De Resurrectione, libri duo.

De Incorporali et invisibili Deo.

De Incorporali.

De Incorporali Anima.

De Spiritali Cogitatu hominis.

De eo quod Deus Pater incorporalis est, libri duo.

De eo quod ait Dominus, Non veni pacem, etc.

De Mandato Domini, Quod ait, Quod dico vobis in aure, etc.

De operibus bonis et malis.

De operibus bonis, ex epist. II. ad Corinth.

Their authenticity is a matter of dispute. Some of them may be genuine,
but Lardner is doubtless right in denying the genuineness of the two
Against Sabellius, which are the most important of all (see Lardner's
Credibility, Part II. chap. 72).

Lightfoot states that a treatise, On the Star which appeared to the
Magi, was published by Wright in the Journal of Sacred Literature
(1866) from a Syriac ms. It is ascribed to Eusebius, but its
genuineness has been disputed, and good reasons have been given for
supposing that it was written originally in Syriac (see Lightfoot, p.
345).

Fabricius (Bibl. Gr. VI. 104) reports that the following works are
extant in ms.: Fragmentum de Mensuris ac Ponderibus (mss. Is. Vossii,
n. 179); De Morte Herodis (ms. in Bibl. Basil.); Praefatio ad Canticum
Mosis in Exodo (Lambec. III. p. 35).
________________________________________________________________

[4] In the preparation of the following Catalogue of Eusebius' writings
Stein, and especially Lightfoot, have been found most helpful.

[5] Since the above section was written, another possibility has
suggested itself to me. As remarked below, on p. 45, it is possible
that Eusebius issued a second edition of his History in the year 324 or
325, with a tenth book added, and that he inserted at that time two
remarks not contained in the first edition of the first nine books. It
is possible, therefore to suppose that the references to the Vita
Pamphili, as an already published book, found in H. E. VI. 32 and VII.
32, may have been added at the same time. Turning to the latter passage
we find our author saying, "It would be no small matter to show what
sort of man he [Pamphilus] was, and whence he came. But we have
described in a separate work devoted to him all the particulars of his
life, and of the school which he established, and the trials which he
endured in many confessions during the persecution, and the crown of
martyrdom with which he was finally honored. But of all who were there
he was the most admirable" (all' houtos men ton tede thaumasiotatos).
The alla, but, seems very unnatural after the paragraph in regard to
the work which Eusebius had already written. In fact, to give the word
its proper adversative force after what precedes is quite impossible,
and it is therefore commonly rendered (as in the translation of the
passage on p. 321, below) simply "indeed." If we suppose the passage in
regard to the Biography of Pamphilus to be a later insertion, the use
of the alla becomes quite explicable. "It would be no small matter to
show what sort of man he was and whence he came. But (this much I can
say here) he was the most admirable of all who were there." Certainly
the reference at this point to the Vita Pamphili thus has something of
the look of a later insertion. In VI. 32, the reference to that work
might be struck out without in the least impairing the continuity of
thought. Still further, in VIII. 13, where the Vita is mentioned,
although the majority of the mss. followed by most of the modern
editions have the past tense anegrEURpsamen "we have written," three of
the best mss. read anagrEURpsomen "we shall write." Might not this
confusion have arisen from the fact that Eusebius, in revising the
History, instead of rewriting this whole passage simply substituted in
the copy which he had before him the word anegrEURpsamen for the
earlier anagrEURpsomen, and that some copyist, or copyists, finding the
earlier form still legible, preferred that to the substituted form,
thinking the latter to be an insertion by some unauthorized person? If
we were then to suppose that the Vita Pamphili was written after the
first edition of the History, but before the issue of the complete work
in its revised form, we should place its composition later than the
longer recension of the Martyrs, but earlier than the shorter
recension, and thus explain quite simply the lack of any reference to
the Vita in the former. Against the theory stated in this note might be
urged the serious objection that the reference to the Martyrs of
Palestine in VIII. 13 is allowed to remain in the future tense even in
the revised edition of the History, a fact which of course argues
against the change of anagrEURpsomen to anegrEURpsamen in the reference
to the Vita in the same chapter. Indeed, I do not which to be
understood as maintaining this theory, or as considering it more
probable than the one stated in the text. I suggest it simply as an
alternative possibility.
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________
__________________________________________________________________

Chapter III

Eusebius' Church History.

S:1. Date of its Composition

The work with which we are especially concerned at this time is the
Church History, the original Greek of which is still extant in numerous
mss. It consists of ten books, to which is added in most of the mss.
the shorter form of the Martyrs of Palestine (see above, p. 29). The
date of the work can be determined with considerable exactness. It
closes with a eulogy of Constantine and his son Crispus; and since the
latter was put to death by his father in the summer of 326, the History
must have been completed before that time. On the other hand, in the
same chapter Eusebius refers to the defeat of Licinius, which took
place in the year 323 a.d. This gives a fixed terminus a quo. It is not
quite certain from Eusebius' words whether the death of Licinius had
already taken place at the time he wrote, but it seems probable that it
had, and if so, the completion of the work must be put as late as the
summer of 324. On the other hand, not the slightest reference is made
to the Council of Nicaea, which met in the summer of 325; and still
further the tenth book is dedicated to Paulinus, at one time bishop of
Tyre and afterward bishop of Antioch (see Euseb. Contra Marc. I. 4, and
Philost. H. E. III. 15), who was already dead in the summer of 325: for
at the Nicene Council, Zeno appears as bishop of Tyre, and Eustathius
as bishop of Antioch (see for further particulars Lightfoot, p. 322).
We are thus led to place the completion of the History in the year 324,
or, to give the widest possible limits, between the latter part of 323
and the early part of 325 a.d.

But the question has been raised whether the earlier books may not have
been composed some years before this. Lightfoot (following Westcott)
supposes that the first nine books were completed not long after the
edict of Milan and before the outbreak of the quarrel between
Constantine and Licinius in 314. There is considerable to be said in
favor of this theory. The language used in the dedication of the tenth
book seems to imply that the nine books had been completed some time
before, and that the tenth is added as a sort of postscript. The close
of the ninth book strengthens that conclusion. Moreover, it would seem
from the last sentences of that book that Constantine and Licinius were
in perfect harmony at the time it was written, a state of affairs which
did not exist after 314. On the other hand, it must be noticed that in
Book IX. chap. 9 Licinius' "madness" is twice referred to as having
"not yet" seized him (in S:1 oupo manentos tote, and in S:12 oupo tote
eph' hen husteron ekpeptoke manian, ten diEURnoian ektrapeis). It is
necessary either to interpret both these clauses as later insertions
(possibly by Eusebius' own hand at the time when he added the tenth
book; cf. also p. 30, above), or to throw the composition of the ninth
book down to the year 319 or later. It is difficult to decide between
these alternatives, but I am inclined on the whole to think that
Westcott's theory is probably correct, and that the two clauses can
best be interpreted as later insertions. The very nature of his History
would at any rate lead us to think that Eusebius spent some years in
the composition of it, and that the earlier books, if not published,
were at least completed long before the issue of the ten books as a
whole. The Chronicle is referred to as already written in I. 1; the
Eclogae Proph. (? see below, p. 85) in I. 2 and 6; the Collection of
Ancient Martyrdoms in IV. 15, V. preface, 4, and 22; the Defense of
Origen in VI. 23, 33, and 36; the Life of Pamphilus in VI. 32, VII. 32,
and VIII. 13. In VIII. 13 Eusebius speaks also of his intention of
relating the sufferings of the martyrs in another work (but see above,
p. 30).
________________________________________________________________

S:2. The Author's Design.

That the composition of a history of the Church was Eusebius' own idea,
and was not due to any suggestion from without, seems clear, both from
the absence of reference to any one else as prompting it, and from the
lack of a dedication at the beginning of the work. The reasons which
led him to undertake its composition seem to have been both scientific
and apologetic. He lived, and he must have realized the fact, at the
opening of a new age in the history of the Church. He believed, as he
frequently tells us, that the period of struggle had come to an end,
and that the Church was now about entering upon a new era of
prosperity. He must have seen that it was a peculiarly fitting time to
put on record for the benefit of posterity the great events which had
taken place within the Church during the generations that were past, to
sum up in one narrative all the trials and triumphs which had now
emerged in this final and greatest triumph, which he was witnessing. He
wrote, as any historian of the present day would write, for the
information and instruction of his contemporaries and of those who
should come after, and yet there was in his mind all the time the
apologetic purpose, the desire to exhibit to the world the history of
Christianity as a proof of its divine origin and efficacy. The plan
which he proposed to himself is stated at the very beginning of his
work: "It is my purpose to write an account of the successions of the
holy apostles, as well as of the times which have elapsed from the days
of our Saviour to our own; and to relate how many and how important
events are said to have occurred in the history of the Church; and to
mention those who have governed and presided over the Church in the
most prominent parishes, and those who in each generation have
proclaimed the divine word either orally or in writing. It is my
purpose also to give the names and the number and the times of those
who through love of innovation have run into the greatest errors, and
proclaiming themselves discoverers of knowledge, falsely so-called,
have, like fierce wolves, unmercifully devastated the flock of Christ.
It is my intention, moreover, to recount the misfortunes which
immediately came upon the whole Jewish nation in consequence of their
plots against our Saviour, and to record the ways and the times in
which the divine word has been attacked by the Gentiles, and to
describe the character of those who at various periods have contended
for it in the face of blood and tortures, as well as the confessions
which have been made in our own days, and finally the gracious and
kindly succour which our Saviour afforded them all." It will be seen
that Eusebius had a very comprehensive idea of what a history of the
Church should comprise, and that he was fully alive to its importance.
________________________________________________________________

S:3. Eusebius as a Historian. The Merits and Defects of his History.

The whole Christian world has reason to be thankful that there lived at
the opening of the fourth century a man who, with his life spanning one
of the greatest epochs that has occurred in the history of the Church,
with an intimate experimental knowledge of the old and of the new
condition of things, was able to conceive so grand a plan and possessed
the means and the ability to carry it out. Had he written nothing else,
Eusebius' Church History would have made him immortal; for if
immortality be a fitting reward for large and lasting services, few
possess a clearer title to it than the author of that work. The value
of the History to us lies not in its literary merit, but in the wealth
of the materials which it furnishes for a knowledge of the early
Church. How many prominent figures of the first three centuries are
known to us only from the pages of Eusebius; how many fragments,
priceless on account of the light which they shed upon movements of
momentous and far-reaching consequence, have been preserved by him
alone; how often a hint dropped, a casual statement made in passing, or
the mention of some apparently trifling event, gives the clue which
enables us to unravel some perplexing labyrinth, or to fit into one
whole various disconnected and apparently unrelated elements, and thus
to trace the steps in the development of some important historical
movement whose rise and whose bearing must otherwise remain an unsolved
riddle. The work reveals no sympathy with Ebionism, Gnosticism, and
Montanism, and little appreciation of their real nature, and yet our
knowledge of their true significance and of their place in history is
due in considerable part to facts respecting the movements or their
leaders which Eusebius alone has recorded or preserved. To understand
the development of the Logos Christology we must comprehend the
significance of the teaching of Paul of Samosata, and how inadequate
would our knowledge of the nature of that teaching be without the
epistle quoted in Book VII. chap. 30. How momentous were the
consequences of the paschal controversies, and how dark would they be
were it not for the light shed upon them by our author. How important,
in spite of their tantalizing brevity and obscurity, the fragments of
Papias' writings; how interesting the extracts from the memoirs of
Hegesippus; how suggestive the meager notices from Dionysius of
Corinth, from Victor of Rome, from Melito, from Caius; how instructive
the long and numerous quotations from the epistles of Dionysius of
Alexandria! He may often fail to appreciate the significance of the
events which he records, he may in many cases draw unwarranted
conclusions from the premises which he states, he may sometimes
misinterpret his documents and misunderstand men and movements, but in
the majority of cases he presents us with the material upon which to
form our own judgments, and if we differ with him we must at the same
time thank him for the data which have enabled us independently to
reach other results.

But the value of Eusebius' Church History does not lie solely in the
fact that it contains so many original sources which would be otherwise
unknown to us. It is not merely a thesaurus, it is a history in the
truest sense, and it possesses an intrinsic value of its own,
independent of its quotations from other works. Eusebius possessed
extensive sources of knowledge no longer accessible to us. His History
contains the results of his extended perusal of many works which are
now irrecoverably lost, of his wide acquaintance with the current
traditions of his day, of his familiar intercourse with many of the
chief men of the age. If we cut out all the documents which he quotes,
there still remains an extensive history whose loss would leave an
irreparable blank in our knowledge of the early Church. How invaluable,
for instance, to mention but one matter, are the researches of our
author in regard to the circulation of the books of the New Testament:
his testimony to the condition of the canon in his own time, and to the
more or less widespread use of particular writings by the Fathers of
preceding centuries. Great as is the value of the sources which
Eusebius quotes, those that he does not give are still more extensive,
and it is the knowledge gained from them which he has transmitted to
us.

The worth of these portions of his History must depend in the first
place upon the extent and reliability of his sources, and in the second
place upon the use which he made of them.

A glance at the list of his authorities given in the index, reveals at
once the immense range of his materials. The number of books which he
either quotes or refers to as read is enormous. When to these are added
the works employed by him in the composition of his Praep. Evang., as
well as the great number which he must have perused, but does not
mention, we are amazed at the extent of his reading. He must have been
a voracious reader from his earliest years, and he must have possessed
extraordinary acquisitive powers. It is safe to say that there was
among the Fathers, with the possible exception of Origen, no more
learned man than he. He thus possessed one of the primary
qualifications of the historian. And yet even in this respect he had
his limitations. He seems to have taken no pains to acquaint himself
with the works of heretics, but to have been content to take his
knowledge of them at second hand. And still further, he was sadly
ignorant of Latin literature and of the Latin Church in general (see
below, p. 106); in fact, we must not expect to glean from his History a
very thorough or extended knowledge of western Christendom.

But his sources were not confined to literary productions. He had a
wide acquaintance with the world, and he was enabled to pick up much
from his intercourse with other men and with different peoples that he
could not have found upon the shelves of the Caesarean or of any other
library. Moreover, he had access to the archives of state and gathered
from them much information quite inaccessible to most men. He was thus
peculiarly fitted, both by nature and by circumstances, for the task of
acquiring material, the first task of the genuine historian.

But the value of his work must depend in the second place upon the
wisdom and honesty with which he used his sources, and upon the
faithfulness and accuracy with which he reproduced the results thus
reached. We are therefore led to enquire as to his qualifications for
this part of his work.

We notice, in the first place, that he was very diligent in the use of
his sources. Nothing seems to have escaped him that might in any way
bear upon the particular subject in hand. When he informs us that a
certain author nowhere mentions a book or an event, he is, so far as I
am aware, never mistaken. When we realize how many works he read
entirely through for the sake of securing a single historical notice,
and how many more he must have read without finding anything to his
purpose, we are impressed with his untiring diligence. To-day, with our
convenient indexes, and with the references at hand which have been
made by many other men who have studied the writings of the ancients,
we hardly comprehend what an amount of labor the production of a
History like Eusebius' must have cost him, a pioneer in that kind of
work.

In the second place, we are compelled to admire the sagacity which our
author displays in the selection of his materials. He possessed the
true instinct of the historian, which enabled him to pick out the
salient points and to present to the reader just that information which
he most desires. We shall be surprised upon examining his work to see
how little it contains which it is not of the utmost importance for the
student of early Church history to know, and how shrewdly the author
has anticipated most of the questions which such a student must ask. He
saw what it was in the history of the first three centuries of the
Church which posterity would most desire to know, and he told them. His
wisdom in this respect is all the more remarkable when compared with
the unwisdom of most of his successors, who filled their works with
legends of saints and martyrs, which, however fascinating they may have
been to the readers of that age, possess little either of interest or
of value for us. When he wishes to give us a glimpse of the
persecutions of those early days, his historical and literary instinct
leads him to dwell especially upon two thoroughly representative
cases,--the martyrdom of Polycarp and the sufferings of the churches of
Lyons and Vienne,--and to preserve for posterity two of the noblest
specimens of martyrological literature which the ancient Church
produced. It is true that he sometimes erred in his judgment as to the
wants of future readers; we could wish that he had been somewhat fuller
and clearer on many points, and that he had not so entirely neglected
some others; but on the whole I am of the opinion that few historical
works, ancient or modern, have in the same compass better fulfilled
their mission in this respect.

In the third place, we can hardly fail to be impressed by the wisdom
with which Eusebius discriminated between reliable and unreliable
sources. Judged by the modern standard he may fall short as a literary
critic, but judged by the standard of antiquity he must be given a very
high rank. Few indeed are the historians of ancient times, secular or
ecclesiastical, who can compare with Eusebius for sound judgment in
this matter. The general freedom of his work from the fables and
prodigies, and other improbable or impossible tales which disfigure the
pages of the great majority even of the soberest of ancient historians,
is one of its most marked features. He shows himself uncommonly
particular in demanding good evidence for the circumstances which he
records, and uncommonly shrewd in detecting spurious and unreliable
sources. When we remember the great number of pseudonymous works which
were current in his day we are compelled to admire his care and his
discrimination. Not that he always succeeded in detecting the false.
More than once he was sadly at fault (as for instance in regard to the
Abgarus correspondence and Josephus' testimony to Christ), and has in
consequence been severely denounced or held up to unsparing ridicule by
many modern writers. But the wonder certainly is not that he erred as
often as he did, but that he did not err oftener; not that he was
sometimes careless in regard to the reliability of his sources, but
that he was ever as careful as, in the majority of cases, he has proved
himself to be. In fact, comparing him with other writers of antiquity,
we cannot commend too highly the care and the skill with which he
usually discriminated between the true and the false.

In the fourth place, he deserves all praise for his constant sincerity
and unfailing honesty. I believe that emphasis should be laid upon this
point for the reason that Eusebius' reputation has often suffered sadly
in consequence of the unjust imputations, and the violent accusations,
which it was for a long time the fashion to make against him, and which
lead many still to treat his statements with distrust, and his
character with contempt. Gibbon's estimate of his honesty is well known
and has been unquestioningly accepted in many quarters, but it is none
the less unjust, and in its implications quite untrue to the facts.
Eusebius does dwell with greater fullness upon the virtues than upon
the vices of the early Church, upon its glory than upon its shame, and
he tells us directly that it is his intention so to do (H. E. VIII. 2),
but he never undertakes to conceal the sins of the Christians, and the
chapter immediately preceding contains a denunciation of their
corruptness and wickedness uttered in no faint terms. In fact, in the
face of these and other candid passages in his work, it is the sheerest
injustice to charge him with dishonesty and unfairness because he
prefers, as almost any Christian historian must, to dwell with greater
fullness of detail upon the bright than upon the dark side of the
picture. Scientific, Eusebius' method, in this respect, doubtless is
not; but dishonest, no one has a right to call it. The most severe
attack which has been made upon Eusebius in recent years is found in an
article by Jachmann (see below, p. 55). The evident animus which runs
through his entire paper is very unpleasant; the conclusions which he
draws are, to say the least, strained. I cannot enter here into a
consideration of his positions; most of them are examined below in the
notes upon the various passages which he discusses. The whole article,
like most similar attacks, proceeds upon the supposition that our
author is guilty, and then undertakes simply to find evidence of that
which is already presupposed. I submit that few writers could endure
such an ordeal. If Eusebius is tried according to the principles of
common justice, and of sound literary criticism, I am convinced, after
long and careful study, that his sincerity and honesty of purpose
cannot be impeached. The particular instances which have been urged as
proving his dishonesty will be discussed below in the notes upon the
respective passages, and to those the reader is referred (compare
especially pp. 88, 98, 100, 111, 112, 114, 127, 194).

Eusebius' critics are wont to condemn him severely for what they are
pleased to call the dishonesty displayed by him in his Vita
Constantini. Such critics forget, apparently, that that work pretends
to be, not a history, but a panegyric. Judging it as such, I am unable
to find anything in it which leads me to entertain for a moment a
suspicion of the author's honesty. It is true that Eusebius emphasizes
the Emperor's good qualities, and fails to mention the darker spots in
his character; but so far as I am aware he misstates no facts, and does
only what those who eulogize deceased friends are accustomed to do the
world over. For a discussion of this matter the reader is referred to
the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, pp. 467 sq. of this volume. I am
pleased to learn from him that his study of the Vita has shown him
nothing which justifies the charge of dishonesty brought against
Eusebius.

One of the most decisive marks of veracity upon the part of our author
is the frankness with which he confesses his lack of knowledge upon any
subject (cf. IV. 5), and the care with which he distinguishes between
the different kinds of evidence upon which he bases his statements. How
frequently the phrases logos zchei, phasi, legetai, &c., occur in
connection with accounts which a less scrupulous historian would not
hesitate to record as undoubted fact. How particular he is to mention
his sources for any unusual or startling event. If the authorities seem
to him quite inadequate, he simply omits all reference to an occurrence
which most of his contemporaries and successors would have related with
the greatest gusto; if the testimony seems to him strong, he records
the circumstance and expressly mentions his authority, whether oral
tradition, the testimony of eye-witnesses, or written accounts, and we
are thus furnished the material from which to form our own judgments.

He is often blamed by modern writers for what they are pleased to call
his excessive credulity. Those who accuse him thus seem to forget that
he lived in the fourth, not in the nineteenth century. That he believed
many things which we now declare to be incredible is perfectly true,
but that he believed things that other Christians of his day pronounced
incredible is not true. Judged, in fact, according to the standard of
his age--and indeed of eleven succeeding centuries--he must be
pronounced remarkably free from the fault of over-credulity, in truth
uncommonly skeptical in his attitude toward the marvelous. Not that he
denies the occurrence of prodigies and wonders in his own and other
ages, but that he always demands the strongest testimony before he
allows himself to be convinced of their truth. Compare, e.g., the care
with which he gives his authorities for the anecdote in regard to the
Thundering Legion (V. 5), and his final suspension of judgment in the
matter; compare also the emphasis which he lays upon the personal
testimony of the Emperor in the matter of the appearance of the sign of
the cross in the sky (Vita Const. I. 28 sq.), a phenomenon which he
himself tells us that he would have believed upon no ordinary evidence.
His conduct in this matter is a sign rather of a skepticism uncommon in
his age than of an excessive and unusual credulity. Gibbon himself
gives our author due credit in this respect, when he speaks of his
character as "less tinctured with credulity, and more practiced in the
arts of courts, than that of almost any of his contemporaries" (Decline
and Fall, chap. XVI.).

On the other hand, Eusebius as an historian had many very grave faults
which it is not my wish in the least to palliate or conceal. One of the
most noticeable of these is his complete lack of any conception of
historiography as a fine art. His work is interesting and instructive
because of the facts which it records, but that interest is seldom if
ever enhanced by his mode of presentation. There is little effective
grouping, almost no sense of perspective, utter ignorance of the art of
suggesting by a single line or phrase a finished picture of a man or of
a movement. He was not, in other words, a Thucydides or a Tacitus; but
the world has seen not many such as they.

A second and still more serious fault is our author's want of depth, if
I may so express myself, his failure to look beneath the surface and to
grasp the real significance of things, to trace the influence of
opinions and events. We feel this defect upon every page. We read the
annals, but we are conscious of no masterful mind behind them,
digesting and comprehending them into one organic and imposing whole.
This radical weakness in our author's method is revealed perhaps most
clearly in his superficial and transcendental treatment of heretics and
heresies, his failure to appreciate their origin and their bearing upon
the progress of Christian thought. Of a development in theology, in
fact, he knows nothing, and hence his work lacks utterly that which we
now look upon as the most instructive part of Church history,--the
history of doctrine.

In the third place, severe censure must be passed upon our author for
his carelessness and inaccuracy in matters of chronology. We should
expect that one who had produced the most extensive chronological work
that had ever been given to the world, would be thoroughly at home in
that province, but in truth his chronology is the most defective
feature of his work. The difficulty is chiefly due to his inexcusable
carelessness, we might almost say slovenliness, in the use of different
and often contradictory sources of information. Instead of applying
himself to the discrepancies, and endeavoring to reach the truth by
carefully weighing the respective merits of the sources, or by testing
their conclusions in so far as tests are possible, he adopts in many
cases the results of both, apparently quite unsuspicious of the
confusion consequent upon such a course. In fact, the critical spirit
which actuates him in dealing with many other matters seems to leave
him entirely when he is concerned with chronology; and instead of
proceeding with the care and circumspection of an historian, he accepts
what he finds with the unquestioning faith of a child. There is no case
in which he can be convicted of disingenuousness, but at times his
obtuseness is almost beyond belief. An identity of names, or a
resemblance between events recorded by different authors, will often be
enough to lead him all unconsciously to himself into the most absurd
and contradictory conclusions. Instances of this may be seen in Book I.
chap. 5, and in II. 11. His confusion in regard to the various
Antonines (see especially the note on the preface to Book V.) is not at
all unusual among the writers of his day, and in view of the frequent
and perplexing use of the same names by the different emperors, might
be quite excusable in a less scholarly man than Eusebius, but in his
case it is evidence of unpardonable want of care. This serious defect
in our author's method is not peculiar to him. Many historians,
critical almost to a fault in most matters, accept the received
chronology without question, and build upon it as if it were the surest
of foundations. Such a consideration does not excuse Eusebius; it
relieves him, however, of the stigma of peculiarity.

Finally, the character of the History is greatly impaired by our
author's desultory method. This is a characteristic of his literary
work in general, and was referred to in the previous chapter. All his
works are marred by it, but few suffer more noticeably than the
History. The author does not confine himself as strictly as he should
to the logical limits of the subject which he is treating, but allows
himself to be led away from the main point by the suggestions that pour
in upon him from all sides. As Lightfoot remarks, "We have not
unfrequently to pick out from various parts of his work the notices
bearing on one definite and limited subject. He relates a fact, or
quotes an authority bearing upon it, in season or out of season,
according as it is recalled to his memory by some accidental
connexion." This unfortunate habit of Eusebius' is one into which men
of wide learning are very apt to fall. The richness of their
acquisitions embarrasses them, and the immense number of facts in their
possession renders a comprehension of them all into one logical whole
very difficult; and yet unless the facts be thus comprehended, unless
they be thoroughly digested and arranged, the result is confusion and
obscurity. To exclude is as necessary as to include, if one would write
history with the highest measure of success; to exclude rigidly at one
time what it is just as necessary to include at another. To men like
Eusebius there is perhaps nothing more difficult than this. Only a mind
as intensive as it is extensive, with a grasp as strong as its reach is
wide, can accomplish it, and few are the minds that are blessed with
both qualities. Few are the writers whose histories stand upon our
shelves that fail not sadly in the one or in the other; and in few
perhaps does the failure seem more marked than in our author.

And yet, though it is apparent that the value of Eusebius' work is
greatly impaired by its desultory method of treatment, I am confident
that the defect is commonly exaggerated. The paragraph which Lightfoot
quotes from Westcott on this subject leaves a false impression.
Altogether too often our author introduces irrelevant matters, and
repeats himself when repetition "mars the symmetry of his work"; and
yet on the whole he follows a fairly well ordered plan with fairly good
success. He endeavors to preserve a strictly chronological sequence in
his arrangement of the books, and he adheres for the most part to his
purpose. Though there may be disorder and confusion within the various
periods, for instance within the apostolic age, the age of Trajan, of
Hadrian, of the Antonines, &c., yet the periods themselves are kept
reasonably distinct from one another, and having finished his account
of one of them the author seldom returns to it. Even in his treatment
of the New Testament canon, which is especially desultory, he says most
of what he has to say about it in connection with the apostles
themselves, and before passing on to the second century. I would not
overlook the exceeding flagrancy of his desultoriness and
repetitiousness in his accounts of the writings of many of the Fathers,
especially of the two Clements, and yet I would emphasize the fact that
he certainly had an outline plan which he designed to follow, and for
which due credit should be given him. He compares favorably in this
respect with at least most of the writers of antiquity. Only with our
modern method of dividing history into periods, separated by natural
boundary lines, and of handling it under clearly defined rubrics, have
we become able wholly to avoid the confused and illogical treatment of
Eusebius and of others like him.
________________________________________________________________

S:4. Editions and Versions.

The original Greek of Eusebius' History has been published in many
editions.

1. The editio princeps is that of Robert Stephanus, which appeared at
Paris in 1544, and again, with a few changes, and with the Latin
translation of Christophorsonus and the notes of Suffridus Petrus, at
Geneva in 1612.

2. Henr. Valesius (de Valois) published his first edition of the Greek
text, with a new Latin translation and with copious critical and
explanatory notes, at Paris in 1659. His edition was reprinted at Mainz
in 1672, but the reprint is full of errors. In 1677, after Valesius'
death, a revised edition was issued at Paris, which in 1695 was
reprinted with some corrections at Amsterdam. In 1720 Valesius' edition
of Eusebius, together with his edition of Socrates, Sozomen, and the
other Greek historians, was republished at Cambridge by William
Reading, in three folio volumes. This is the best edition of Valesius,
the commentary being supplemented by ms. notes which he had left among
his papers, and increased by large additions from other writers under
the head of Variorum. A reprint of Reading's edition was issued in
1746-1748, but according to Heinichen it is not as accurate as that of
1720. For the elucidation of Eusebius' History we owe more to Valesius
than to any other man. His edition of the text was an immense advance
upon that of Stephanus, and has formed the basis of all subsequent
editions, while his notes are a perfect storehouse of information from
which all annotators of Eusebius have extensively drawn. Migne's
edition (Opera, II. 45-906) is a reprint of Valesius' edition of 1659.

3. F. A. Stroth (Halle, 1779). A new edition of the Greek text, of
which, however, only the first volume appeared, comprising Books
I.-VII.

4. E. Zimmermann (Frankfort-on-the-Main, 1822). A new edition of the
Greek text, containing also the Latin translation of Valesius, and a
few critical notes.

5. F. A. Heinichen (Leipzig, 1827 and 1828). An edition of the Greek
text in three volumes, with a reprint of the entire commentary of
Valesius, and with the addition of Variorum notes. The critical
apparatus, printed in the third volume, is very meager. A few valuable
excursuses close the work. Forty years later Heinichen published a
second edition of the History in his Eusebii Pamphili Scripta Historica
(Lips. 1868-1870, 3 vols.). The first volume contains the Greek text of
the History, with valuable prolegomena, copious critical apparatus and
very useful indices; the second volume contains the Vita Constantini,
the Panegyricus or De laudibus Constantini, and Constantine's Oratio ad
Sanctorum coetum, also accompanied with critical apparatus and indices;
the third volume contains an extensive commentary upon the works
included in the first two volumes, together with twenty-nine valuable
excursuses. This entirely supersedes the first, and is on the whole the
most complete and useful edition of the History which we have. The
editor made diligent use of the labors of his predecessors, especially
of Laemmer's. He did no independent work, however, in the way of
collecting material for the criticism of the text, and was deficient in
critical judgment. As a consequence his text has often to be amended on
the basis of the variant readings, which he gives with great fullness.
His commentary is made up largely of quotations from Valesius and other
writers, and is valuable for the material it thus contains as well as
for its references to other works. It labors under the same
incompleteness, however, that mars Valesius' commentary, and, moreover,
contains almost nothing of independent value.

6. E. Burton (Oxford, 1838). The Greek text in two volumes, with the
translation of Valesius and with critical apparatus; and again in 1845,
with the critical apparatus omitted, but with the notes of Valesius,
Heinichen and others added. Burton made large contributions to the
criticism of the text, and had he lived to superintend the issue of the
second edition, would perhaps have succeeded in giving us a better text
than any which we now possess, for he was a far more sagacious critic
than Heinichen. As it is, his edition is marred by numerous
imperfections, largely caused by the inaccuracy of those who collated
mss. for him. His text, with the translation, notes, and critical
apparatus omitted, was reprinted by Bright at Oxford in 1872, and again
in 1881, in a single volume. This is a very handy edition, and for
school use is unsurpassed. The typography is superb, and the admirable
plan is followed of discarding quotation marks and printing all
citations in smaller type, thus making plain to the eye at a glance
what is Eusebius' own and what is another's. The text is preceded by a
very interesting and graphic life of the historian.

7. Schwegler (Tuebingen, 1852, in one volume). The Greek text with
critical apparatus, but without translation and notes. An accurate and
useful edition.

8. Laemmer (Schaffhausen, 1859-1862). The Greek text in one volume,
with extensive critical apparatus, but without explanatory notes.
Laemmer had unusual opportunities for collecting material, and has made
larger additions to the critical apparatus than any one else. His
edition was issued, however, in a most slovenly manner, and swarms with
mistakes. Great care should therefore be exercised in the use of it.

9. Finally must be mentioned the text of Dindorf (Lips. 1871), which is
published in the Teubner series, and like most of the volumes of that
series is handy and convenient, but of little value to the critical
student.

There are few writings of the Fathers which more sadly need and more
richly deserve a new critical edition than the History of Eusebius. The
material for the formation of a reliable text is extensive and
accessible, but editors have contented themselves too much in the past
with the results of their predecessors' labors, and unfortunately those
labors have not always been accurate and thorough. As a consequence a
new and more careful collation of most of the mss. of the original,
together with those of Rufinus' translation, must lie at the foundation
of any new work which is to be done in this line. The publication of
the Syriac version will doubtless furnish much valuable material which
the next editor of the History will be able to use to advantage.
Anything less than such a thorough work as I have indicated will be of
little worth. Unless the new edition be based upon extensive and
independent labors, it will be little if any improvement upon that of
Heinichen. It is to be hoped that a critical text, up to the standard
of those of some other patristic works which we already possess, may
yet be issued, which shall give us this, one of the noblest productions
of the ancient Church, in a fitting and satisfactory form.

Translations of Eusebius' History are very numerous. Probably the
earliest of all is the ancient Syriac version which is preserved in
great part in two mss., one of which is at St. Petersburg and contains
the entire History with the exception of Book VI. and large portions of
Books V. and VII. The ms. is dated 462 a.d. (see Wright's description
of it in his Catalogue of the Syriac mss. in the British Museum
acquired since the year 1838, Part III. p. xv. sq.). The second ms. is
in the British Museum, and contains Books I.-V., with some mutilations
at the beginning of the first book. The ms. dates from the sixth
century (see Wright's description of it in his Catalogue, p. 1039).
From these mss. Wright was engaged in preparing an edition of the
Syriac, which remained unfinished at the time of his death. Whether he
left his work in such shape that it can soon be issued by some one else
I have not yet learned. The version was probably made at a very early
date, possibly within the lifetime of Eusebius himself, though of that
we can have no assurance. I understand that it confirms in the main the
Greek text as now printed in our best editions.

The original Latin version was made by Rufinus in the early years of
the fifth century. He translated only nine books, and added to them two
of his own, in which he brought the history down to the death of
Theodosius the Great. He allowed himself his customary license in
translating, and yet, although his version is by no means exact, it is
one of our best sources for a knowledge of the true text of Eusebius,
for it is possible, in many doubtful cases where our mss. are
hopelessly divided, to ascertain from his rendering what stood in the
original Greek. The version of Rufinus had a large circulation, and
became in the Western Church a substitute for the original throughout
the Middle Ages. It was first printed, according to Fabricius (ib. p.
59), in 1476 at Rome, afterward a great many times there and elsewhere.
The first critical edition, which still remains the best, is that of
Cacciari (Rome, 1740), which has become rare, and is very difficult to
find. A new edition is a great desideratum. An important work upon
Rufinus' version is Kimmel's De Rufino Eusebii Interprete, Gerae, 1838.

A new Latin translation, by Wolfgang Musculus, was published in Basle,
in 1549, and again in 1557, 1562, and 1611, according to Fabricius
(Bibl. Gr. VI. p. 60). I have myself seen only the edition of 1562.

Still another Latin version, from the hand of Christophorsonus, was
published at Louvain in 1570. This is the only edition of
Christophorsonus which I have seen, but I have notices of Cologne
editions of 1570, 1581 and 1612, and of a Paris edition of 1571.
According to Fabricius the Paris edition, and according to Brunnet the
Cologne edition of 1581, contain the notes of Suffridus Petrus. A
revision of Christophorsonus' version is said by Cruse to have been
published by Curterius, but I have not seen it, nor am I aware of its
date.

Another translation, by Grynaeus, was published at Basle in 1611. This
is the only edition of Grynaeus' version which I have seen, and I find
in it no reference to an earlier one. I have been informed, however,
that an edition appeared in 1591. Hanmer seems to imply, in his
preface, that Grynaeus' version is only a revision of that of Musculus,
and if that were so we should have to identify the 1611 edition with
the 1611 edition of Musculus mentioned by Fabricius (see above). I am
able, however, to find no hint in Grynaeus' edition itself that his
version is a revision of that of Musculus.

The translation of Valesius, which was first published in 1659 (see
above), was a great improvement upon all that had preceded it, and has
been many times reprinted in other editions of Eusebius, as well as in
his own.

The first German translation was published by Caspar Hedio. The date of
publication is given by Fabricius as 1545, but the copy which I have
seen is dated 1582, and contains no reference to an earlier edition. It
comprises only nine books of Eusebius, supplemented by the two of
Rufinus. The title runs as follows: Chronica, das ist: wahrhaftige
Beschreibunge aller alten Christlichen Kirchen; zum ersten, die hist.
eccles. Eusebii Pamphili Caesariensis, Eilff Buecher; zum andern, die
hist. eccles. tripartita Sozomeni, Socratis und Theodoreti, Zwoelff
Buecher; zum dritten die hist. eccles. sampt andern treffenlichen
Geschichten, die zuvor in Teutschef Sprache wenig gelesen sind, auch
Zwoelff Buecher. Von der Zeit an da die hist. eccles. tripartita
aufhoeret: das ist, von der jarzal an, vierhundert nach Christi geburt,
biss auff das jar MDXLV, durch D. Caspar Hedion zu Strassburg
verteutscht und zusamen getragen. Getruckt zu Franckfurt am Mayn, im
jar 1582.

A second German translation of the entire History (with the exception
of the Martyrs of Palestine, and the Oration on the Building of the
Churches, X. 4), together with the Life of Constantine, was published
by F. A. Stroth in Quedlinburg in 1777, in two volumes. Stroth prefaced
the translation with a very valuable Life of Eusebius, and added a
number of excellent notes of his own. The translation is reasonably
accurate.

A much more elegant German version (including the Oration, but omitting
the Martyrs of Palestine) was published by Closs in Stuttgart in 1839,
in one volume. This is in my opinion the best translation of the
History that exists. Its style is admirable, but pure German idiom is
sometimes secured at the expense of faithfulness. In fact the author
has aimed to produce a free, rather than a literal translation, and has
occasionally allowed himself to depart too far from the original. A few
brief notes, most of them taken from Valesius or Stroth, accompany the
translation.

More recently a German translation has been published by Stigloher
(Kempten, 1880) in the Kempten Bibliothek der Kirchenvaeter. It
purports to be a new translation, but is practically nothing more than
a poorly revised edition of Closs' version. The changes which are made
are seldom improvements.

Fabricius mentions a French translation by Claudius Seysselius, but
does not give the date of it, and I have not myself seen it. Dr.
Richardson, however, informs me that he has a copy of this translation
(which is from the Latin, not from the Greek) bearing the following
title: L'Histoire ecclesiastique translatie de Latin au Franc,ais, par
M. Claude de Seyssel, evesque lors de Marseille, et depuis archevesque
de Thurin. Paris, 1532 [or '33], f-o. He informs me also that there
exist editions of the years 1537 and 1567.

More than a century later appeared a new French translation by Louis
Cousin, bearing the following title: Histoire de l'Eglise ecrite par
Eusebe Cesaree, Socrate, Sozomene, Theodoret et Evagre, avec l'abrege
de Philostorge par Photius, et de Theodore par Nicephore Calliste.
Paris, 1675-1676. 4 vol. 4-o. Another edition appeared in Holland in
1686, 5 vol. 12-o.

The first English translation was made by Hanmer, and was issued in
1584, and, according to Cruse, passed through five editions. The fourth
edition, which lies before me, was published in London in 1636. The
volume contains the Histories of Eusebius, of Socrates, and of
Evagrius; Dorotheus' Lives, and Eusebius' Life of Constantine.

Another translation is said by Cruse to have been published about a
century later by T. Shorting, and to be a decided improvement upon that
of Hanmer. I have seen no copy bearing Shorting's name, but have
examined an anonymous translation which bears the following title: The
Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphilus in ten books. Made into
English from that edition set forth by Valesius, and printed at Paris
in the year 1659; together with Valesius' notes on the said historian,
which are done into English and set at their proper place in the
margin. Hereto also is annexed an account of the life and writings of
the aforesaid historian, collected by Valesius and rendered into
English. Cambridge: John Hayes, 1683. This is evidently the translation
of Shorting referred to by Cruse, for it answers perfectly the
description which he gives of it.

An abridgment of this version, made by Parker, is mentioned both by
Fabricius (ib. p. 62) and by Cruse, but I have not myself seen it.
Fabricius gives its date as 1703, and Dr. Richardson informs me that he
has seen an edition bearing the date 1729, and that he has a note of
another published in 1703 or 1720.

The latest English translation was made by the Rev. C. F. Cruse, an
American Episcopalian of German descent, and was published first in
Philadelphia in 1833, with a translation, by Parker, of Valesius' Life
of Eusebius prefixed. It has been reprinted a great many times both in
England and America, and is included in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library.
In Bohn's edition are printed a few scattered notes from Valesius'
commentary, and in some other editions an historical account of the
Council of Nicaea, by Isaac Boyle, is added. The translation is an
improvement upon its predecessors, but is nevertheless very faulty and
unsatisfactory. The translator is not thoroughly at home in the
English, and, moreover, his version is marred by many serious omissions
and interpolations which reveal an inexcusable degree of carelessness
on his part.
________________________________________________________________

S:5. Literature.

The literature upon Eusebius' History is very extensive. Many of the
editions already mentioned discuss, in their prolegomena, the History
itself and Eusebius' character as a historian, as do also all the lives
of Eusebius referred to above, and all the larger histories of the
Church. In addition to these we have numerous important monographs and
essays, of which the following may be mentioned here: Moeller, de Fide
Eusebii in rebus christianis enarrandis, Havn. 1813; Danz, de Eusebio
Caesariensi Hist. Ecclesiasticae Scriptore, Jenae, 1815. This was
mentioned in Chapter I. as containing a valuable discussion of the life
of Eusebius. Its chief importance lies in its treatment of the sources
of the Church History, to which the author devotes the whole of Chap.
III. which bears the title, de fontibus, quibus usus, historiam
ecclesiasticam conscripsit Eusebius, pp. 76-144. Kestner, de Eusebii
Historiae Eccles. conditoris auctoritate, et fide diplomatica, sive de
ejus Fontibus et Ratione qua eis usus est, Gottingae, 1816; and by the
same author, Ueber die Einseitigkeit und Partheiligkeit des Eusebius
als Geschichtschreibers, Jenae, 1819; Reuterdahl, de Fontibus Historiae
Eccles. Eusebianae, Londini Gothorum, 1826; Reinstra, de Fontibus, ex
quibus Historiae Eccles. opus hausit Eusebius Pamphili, et de Ratione,
qua iis usus est, Trajecti ad Rhenum, 1833; F. C. Baur, Comparatur
Eusebius Historiae Eccles. Parens cum Parente Historiae Herodoto, Tueb.
1834; and pp. 9-26 of the same author's Epochen der kirchlichen
Geschichtschreibung, Tueb. 1852; Dowling, Introduction to the Critical
Study of Eccles. History, London, 1838, pp. 11-18; Hely, Eusebe de
Cesaree, premier Historien de l'Eglise, Paris, 1877; J. Burckhardt,
Zeit Constantins, 2d ed. 1880, pp. 307 sq. Burckhardt depreciates
Eusebius' value and questions his veracity. The review articles that
have been written on Eusebius' History are legion. I shall mention only
Engelhardt's Eusebius als Kirchengeschichtschreiber, in the Zeitschrift
fuer hist. Theol. 1852, pp. 652-657; and Jachmann's Bemerkungen ueber
die Kirchengeschichte des Eusebius, ib. 1839, II. pp. 10-60. The latter
contains one of the most unsparing attacks upon Eusebius' honesty that
has ever been made (see above, p. 49).
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________

Testimonies of the Ancients in Favor of Eusebius. [6]

__________

From Constantine's Letter to the Antiochians (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book III. chap. 60).

"I confess, then, that on reading your records I perceived, by the
highly eulogistic testimony which they bear to Eusebius, bishop of
Caesarea (whom I have myself long well known and esteemed for his
learning and moderation), that you are strongly attached to him and
desire to appropriate him as your own prelate. What thoughts then do
you suppose that I entertain on this subject, desirous as I am to seek
for and act on the strict principles of right? What anxiety do you
imagine this desire of yours has caused me? O holy faith, who givest us
in our Saviour's words and precepts a model, as it were, of what our
life should be, how hardly wouldst thou thyself resist the course of
sin were it not that thou refusest to subserve the purposes of gain! In
my own judgment, he whose first object is the maintenance of peace
seems to be superior to Victory herself; and where a right and
honorable course lies open to one's choice, surely no one would
hesitate to adopt it. I ask then, brethren, why do we so decide as to
inflict an injury on others by our choice? Why do we covet those
objects which will destroy the credit of our own character? I myself
highly esteem the individual whom ye judge worthy of your respect and
affection; notwithstanding, it cannot be right that those principles
should be entirely disregarded which should be authoritative and
binding on all alike; for example, that each should be content with the
limits assigned them, and that all should enjoy their proper
privileges; nor can it be right in considering the claims of rival
candidates to suppose but that not one only, but many, may appear
worthy of comparison with this person. For as long as no violence or
harshness are suffered to disturb the dignities of the Church, they
continue to be on an equal footing, and worthy of the same
consideration everywhere. Nor is it reasonable that an enquiry into the
qualifications of one person should be made to the detriment of others;
since the judgment of all churches, whether reckoned of greater
importance in themselves, is equally capable of receiving and
maintaining the divine ordinances, so that one is in no way inferior to
another (if we will but boldly declare the truth), in regard to that
standard of practice which is common to all. If this be so, we must say
that you will be chargeable, not with retaining this prelate, but with
wrongfully removing him; your conduct will be characterized rather by
violence than justice; and whatever may be generally thought by others,
I dare clearly and boldly affirm that this measure will furnish ground
of accusation against you, and will provoke factious disturbances of
the most mischievous kind; for even timid flocks can show the use and
power of their teeth when the watchful care of their shepherd declines,
and they find themselves bereft of his accustomed guidance. If this
then be really so, if I am not deceived in my judgment, let this,
brethren, be your first consideration (for many and important
considerations will immediately present themselves, if you adopt my
advice), whether, should you persist in your intention, that mutual
kindly feeling and affection which should subsist among you will suffer
no diminution? In the next place remember that Eusebius, who came among
you for the purpose of offering disinterested counsel, now enjoys the
reward which is due to him in the judgment of heaven; for he has
received no ordinary recompense in the high testimony you have borne to
his equitable conduct. Lastly, in accordance with your usual sound
judgment, do ye exhibit a becoming diligence in selecting the person of
whom you stand in need, carefully avoiding all factious and tumultuous
clamor: for such clamor is always wrong, and from the collision of
discordant elements both sparks and flame will arise."

From the Emperor's Letter to Eusebius(in Eusebius' Life of Constantine,
Book III. chap. 61).

"I have most carefully perused your letter, and perceive that you have
strictly conformed to the rule enjoined by the discipline of the
Church. Now to abide by that which appears at the same time pleasing to
God, and accordant with apostolic tradition, is a proof of true piety:
and you have reason to deem yourself happy on this behalf, that you are
counted worthy, in the judgment, I may say, of all the world, to have
the oversight of the whole Church. For the desire which all feel to
claim you for their own, undoubtedly enhances your enviable fortune in
this respect. Notwithstanding, your Prudence, whose resolve it is to
observe the ordinances of God and the apostolic rule of the Church, has
done excellently well in declining the bishopric of the Church at
Antioch, and desiring to continue in that Church of which you first
received the oversight by the will of God."

From Constantine's Letter to the Council (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book III. chap. 62).

"I have perused the letters written by your Prudences, and highly
approve of the wise resolution of your colleague in the ministry,
Eusebius. Having, moreover, been informed of the circumstances of the
case, partly by your letters, partly by those of our illustrious
friends Acacius and Strategius, after sufficient investigation I have
written to the people at Antioch, suggesting the course which will be
at once pleasing to God and advantageous for the Church. A copy of this
I have ordered to be subjoined to this present letter, in order that ye
yourselves may know what I thought fit, as an advocate of the cause of
justice, to write to that people: since I find in your letter this
proposal, that, in consonance with the choice of the people, sanctioned
by your own desire, Eusebius the holy bishop of Caesarea should preside
over and take the charge of the Church at Antioch. Now the letters of
Eusebius himself on this subject appeared to be strictly accordant with
the order prescribed by the Church."

From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book IV. chap. 35).

"It is indeed an arduous task, and beyond the power of language itself,
worthily to treat of the mysteries of Christ, and to explain in a
fitting manner the controversy respecting the feast of Easter, its
origin as well as its precious and toilsome accomplishment. For it is
not in the power even of those who are able to apprehend them,
adequately to describe the things of God. I am, notwithstanding, filled
with admiration of your learning and zeal, and have not only myself
read your work with pleasure, but have given directions, according to
your own desire, that it be communicated to many sincere followers of
our holy religion. Seeing, then, with what pleasure we receive favors
of this kind from your Sagacity, be pleased to gladden us more
frequently with those compositions, to the practice of which, indeed,
you confess yourself to have been trained from an early period, so that
I am urging a willing man (as they say), in exhorting you to your
customary pursuits. And certainly the high and confident judgment we
entertain is a proof that the person who has translated your writings
into the Latin tongue is in no respect incompetent to the task,
impossible though it be that such version should fully equal the
excellence of the works themselves."

From a Letter of Constantine to Eusebius (in Eusebius' Life of
Constantine, Book IV. chap. 36).

"It happens, through the favoring providence of God our Saviour, that
great numbers have united themselves to the most holy Church in the
city which is called by my name. It seems, therefore, highly requisite,
since that city is rapidly advancing in prosperity in all other
respects, that the number of Churches should also be increased. Do you,
therefore, receive with all readiness my determination on this behalf.
I have thought it expedient to instruct your Prudence to order fifty
copies of the sacred scriptures (the provision and use of which you
know to be most needful for the instruction of the Church) to be
written on prepared parchment in a legible manner, and in a commodious
and portable form, by transcribers thoroughly practiced in their art.
The procurator of the diocese has also received instructions by letter
from our Clemency to be careful to furnish all things necessary for the
preparation of such copies; and it will be for you to take special care
that they be completed with as little delay as possible. You have
authority also, in virtue of this letter, to use two of the public
carriages for their conveyance, by which arrangement the copies when
fairly written will most easily be forwarded for my personal
inspection; and one of the deacons of your Church may be intrusted with
this service, who, on his arrival here, shall experience my liberality.
God preserve you, beloved brother!"

From the Epistle of Eusebius of Nicomedia, to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre
(given by Theodoret in his Eccles. Hist. I. 6).

"Neither has the zeal of my lord Eusebius concerning the truth, nor thy
silence in this matter been unknown, but has reached even us. And, as
was fitting, on the one hand we have rejoiced on account of my lord
Eusebius; but on the other, we are grieved on thy account, since we
look upon the silence of such a man as a condemnation of our cause."

From the Book of Basil, to Amphilochius, on the Holy Spirit (chap. 29).

"If to any one Eusebius of Palestine seem trustworthy on account of his
great experience, we give his own words in the Difficulties concerning
the Polygamy of the Ancients."

From the Book of Questions on the Old and New Testaments, which is
published among the Works of Augustine (chap. 125).

"We remember to have read in a certain pamphlet of Eusebius, a man
formerly distinguished among the rest of men, that not even the Holy
Spirit knows the mystery of the nativity of our Lord Jesus Christ; and
I wonder that a man of so great learning should have imposed this
stigma upon the Holy Spirit."

From Jerome's Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).

"Apollinarius wrote the very strongest books against Porphyry; Eusebius
has excellently composed his Ecclesiastical History. Of these men, one
taught an incomplete human nature in Christ; the other was a most open
defender of the heresy of Arius."

From the Apology of Jerome against Rufinus (Book I. chap. 8).

"As I have already said, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, formerly leader
of the Arian party, has written six books in defense of Origen--a very
extensive and elaborate work; with much evidence he has proved that
Origen was, from his point of view, a Catholic, that is, from ours, an
Arian."

From the same book (chap. 9).

"For Eusebius himself, a friend, eulogist and companion of Pamphilus,
has written three very elegant books comprising a life of Pamphilus. In
these, after extolling other things with wondrous praises and exalting
his humility to the skies, he also adds this in the third book," &c.

And a little farther on in the same book (chap. 11).

"I have praised Eusebius in his Ecclesiastical History, in his
Chronological Canons, in his Description of the Holy Land; and turning
these same little works into Latin I have given them to those of my own
tongue. Am I therefore an Arian, because Eusebius who wrote these books
is an Arian?"

From Jerome's second book against Rufinus (chap. 16).

"Eusebius, a very learned man (I have said learned, not Catholic; lest
after the usual manner, even in this thing, thou heap calumny upon me),
in six volumes does nothing else than show Origen to be of his own
faith; that is, of the Arian heresy."

From the Preface of Jerome's Book on Hebrew Topography.

"Eusebius, who took his surname from the blessed martyr Pamphilus,
after the ten books of his Ecclesiastical History, after his
Chronological Canons, which we have published in the Latin tongue,
after his Names of Various Nations, in which he showed how these were
formerly, and are now, called among the Hebrews; after his Topography
of the Land of Judea, with the inheritances of the tribes; after his
Jerusalem, also, and his Plan of the Temple, with a very brief
explanation,--after all these he has finally in this little work
labored that he might collect for us from Holy Scripture the names of
almost all the cities, mountains, rivers, villages, and divers places,
which either remain the same, or have since been changed, or else have
become corrupted from some source, wherefore we also, following the
zeal of this admirable man," &c.

From Jerome's Book on Ecclesiastical Writers (chap. 61).

"Hippolytus, bishop of a certain church (I have not indeed been able to
find out the name of the city), wrote a reckoning of Easter, and
chronological tables up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander, and
hit upon a cycle of sixteen years which the Greeks call
hekkaidekaeterida; and gave an occasion to Eusebius, who also composed
an Easter canon, with a cycle of nineteen years, that is
enneadekaeterida."

From the same book (chap. 81).

"Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, a man most studious in the
sacred Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr a most diligent
investigator of sacred literature, has edited an infinite number of
volumes, some of which are these: of the Demonstratio Evangelica,
twenty books; of the Praeparatio Evangelica, fifteen books; of the
Theophania, five books; of the Ecclesiastical History, ten books; a
General History in Chronological Tables, and an Epitome of them; also,
On the Discrepancies of the Gospels; On Isaiah, ten books; and Against
Porphyry (who at the same time was writing in Sicily, as some think),
thirty books, of which only twenty have come to my notice; of his
Topica, one book; of the Apologia, in defense of Origen, six books; On
the Life of Pamphilus, three books; Concerning the Martyrs, other small
works; also very learned commentaries on the hundred and fifty Psalms,
and many other writings. He flourished chiefly under the emperors
Constantine and Constantius; and on account of his friendship with
Pamphilus the martyr, he took from him his surname."

From the same book (chap. 96).

"Eusebius, by nation a Sardinian, and, after being reader in Rome,
bishop of Vercellae, on account of his confession of the faith banished
by the Prince Constantius to Scythopolis, and thence to Cappadocia,
under Julian the emperor sent back to the Church, has published the
Commentaries on the Psalms of Eusebius of Caesarea, which he had
translated from Greek into Latin."

Jerome in the Preface to his Commentaries on Daniel.

"Against the prophet Daniel Porphyry wrote a twelfth volume, denying
that that book was composed by him with whose name it is inscribed, &c.
To him Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, has replied very skillfully in
three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and XX. Apollinarius
also in one large volume, that is, in the twenty-sixth volume, and
before these, in part, Methodius."

Jerome on the Twenty-fourth Chapter of Matthew.

"Concerning this place, that is, concerning the abomination of
desolation which was spoken of by the prophet Daniel, standing in the
holy place, Porphyry has uttered many blasphemies against us in the
thirteenth volume of his work. To whom Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,
has replied in three volumes, that is, in volumes XVIII., XIX., and
XX."

The same, in his Epistle to Magnus (Ep. 84).

"Celsus and Porphyry have written against us. To the former Origen, to
the latter Methodius, Eusebius, and Apollinarius have very vigorously
replied. Of whom Origen wrote eight books, Methodius proceeded as far
as ten thousand lines, Eusebius and Apollinarius composed twenty-five
and thirty volumes respectively."

The same, in his Epistle to Pammachius and Oceanus (Ep. 65).

"What more skillful, more learned, more eloquent men can be found than
Eusebius and Didymus, the advocates of Origen? The former of whom, in
the six volumes of his Apologia, proves that he [Origen] was of the
same opinion as himself."

Jerome, in the Preface to his Commentaries on Isaiah.

"Eusebius Pamphili also has published an historical commentary in
fifteen volumes."

The same, in the Preface to the Fifth Book of his Commentaries on
Isaiah.

"Shall I take upon myself a work at which the most learned men have
labored hard? I speak of Origen and Eusebius Pamphili. Of these the
former wanders afar in the free spaces of allegory, and his genius so
interprets single names as to make out of them the sacred things of the
Church. The latter, while promising in his title an historical
exposition, meanwhile forgets his purpose, and yields himself up to the
tenets of Origen."

The same, in the fifth book of his Commentaries on Isaiah.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, while promising in his title an historical
exposition, strays off in divers notions: while reading his books I
found much else than what he gave promise of in his title. For wherever
history has failed him, he has crossed over into allegory; and in such
a manner does he unite things that are distinct, that I wonder at his
joining together by a new art of discourse stone and iron into one
body."

Jerome on the first chapter of Matthew.

"This [chapter] also Africanus, a writer of chronology, and Eusebius of
Caesarea, in his books on the Discrepancies of the Gospels, have
discussed more fully."

Rufinus in his Epistle to the Bishop Chromatius.

"You charge me to translate into Latin the Ecclesiastical History,
which the very learned Eusebius of Caesarea wrote in the Greek tongue."

Augustine, in his Book on Heresies (chap. 83).

"When I had searched through the History of Eusebius, to which Rufinus,
after having himself translated it into the Latin tongue, has also
added two books of subsequent history, I did not find any heresy which
I had not read among these very ones, except that one which Eusebius
inserts in his sixth book, stating that it had existed in Arabia.
Therefore these heretics, since he assigns them no founder, we may call
Arabians, who declared that the soul dies and is destroyed along with
the body, and that at the end of the world both are raised again. But
he states that they were very quickly corrected, these by the
disputation of Origen in person, and those by his exhortation."

Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius of
Caesarea's Apology for Origen.

"Since now this man was very learned, having searched out and traced
back all the books and writings of the more ancient writers, and having
set forth the opinions of almost all of them, and having left behind
very many writings, some of which are worthy of all acceptation, making
use of such an estimation as this of the man, they attempt to lead away
some, saying, that Eusebius would not have chosen to take this view,
unless he had accurately ascertained that all the opinions of the
ancients required it. I, indeed, agree and admit that the man was very
learned, and that not anything of the more ancient writings escaped his
knowledge; for, taking advantage of the imperial co-operation, he was
enabled easily to collect for his use material from whatever quarter."

From the First Book of Extracts from the Ecclesiastical History of
Philostorgius.

"Philostorgius, while praising Eusebius Pamphili both as to whatever of
worth belongs to his histories and as to other things, yet declares
that with regard to religion he has fallen into great error; and that
he impiously sets forth this error of his in detail, holding that the
Deity is unknowable and incomprehensible. Moreover, he holds that he
has also gone astray on other such things. But he unites with others in
attesting that he brought his History down to the accession of the sons
of Constantine the Great."

Socrates in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).

"Eusebius, surnamed Pamphilus (i.e. universally beloved), has composed
a History of the Church in ten books, brought down to the time of the
Emperor Constantine, when the persecution ceased which Diocletian had
commenced against the Christians. But, in writing the life of
Constantine, this author has very slightly treated of the Arian
controversy, being evidently more intent on a highly wrought eulogium
of the emperor than an accurate statement of facts."

The same Socrates in the Eighth Chapter of the same Book, speaking of
Sabinus, Bishop of Macedonia, who had written a History of the Synod,
says:--

"Yet he commends Eusebius Pamphilus as a witness worthy of credit, and
praises the Emperor as capable in stating Christian doctrines; but he
still brands the faith which was declared at Nice as having been set
forth by ignorant men, and such as had no intelligence in the matter.
Thus he voluntarily contemns the testimony of a man whom he himself
pronounces a wise and true witness; for Eusebius declares that of the
ministers of God who were present at the Nicene Synod, some were
eminent for the word of wisdom, others for the strictness of their
life; and that the Emperor himself being present, leading all into
unanimity, established unity of judgment, and conformity of opinion
among them."

The same Socrates, in Book II. chap. 21.

"But since some have attempted to stigmatize Eusebius Pamphilus as
having favored the Arian views in his works, it may not be irrelevant
here to make a few remarks respecting him. In the first place, then, he
was present at the council of Nice, and gave his assent to what was
there determined in reference to the consubstantiality of the Son with
the Father, and in the third book of the Life of Constantine, he thus
expressed himself: `The Emperor incited all to unanimity, until he had
rendered them united in judgment on those points on which they were
previously at variance: so that they were quite agreed at Nice in
matters of faith.' Since, therefore, Eusebius, in mentioning the Nicene
Synod, says that all differences were composed, and that unanimity of
sentiment prevailed, what ground is there for assuming that he was
himself an Arian? The Arians are certainly deceived in supposing him to
be a favorer of their tenets. But some one will perhaps say that in his
discourses he seems to have adopted the opinions of Arius, because of
his frequently saying by Christ. Our answer is that ecclesiastical
writers often use this mode of expression, and others of a similar kind
denoting the economy of our Saviour's humanity: and that before all
these the apostle made use of such expressions without ever being
accounted a teacher of false doctrine. Moreover, inasmuch as Arius has
dared to say that the Son is a creature, as one of the others, observe
what Eusebius says on this subject in his first book against Marcellus:

"`He alone, and no other, has been declared to be, and is the
only-begotten Son of God; whence any one would justly censure those who
have presumed to affirm that he is a Creature made of nothing, like the
rest of the creatures; for how then would he be a Son? and how could he
be God's only-begotten, were he assigned the same nature as the other
creatures, and were he one of the many created things, seeing that he,
like them, would in that case be partaker of a creation from nothing?
The sacred Scriptures do not thus instruct us concerning these things.'
He again adds a little afterwards: `Whoever then determines that the
Son is made of things that are not, and that he is a creature produced
from nothing pre-existing, forgets that while he concedes the name of
Son, he denies him to be so in reality. For he that is made of nothing
cannot truly be the Son of God, any more than the other things which
have been made: but the true Son of God, forasmuch as he is begotten of
the Father, is properly denominated the only-begotten and beloved of
the Father. For this reason also, he himself is God: for what can the
offspring of God be but the perfect resemblance of him who begat him? A
sovereign, indeed, builds a city, but does not beget it; and is said to
beget a son, not to build one. An artificer may be called the framer,
but not the father of his work; while he could by no means be styled
the framer of him whom he had begotten. So also the God of the Universe
is the father of the Son; but would be fitly termed the Framer and
Maker of the world. And although it is once said in Scripture, The Lord
created me the beginning of his ways on account of his works, yet it
becomes us to consider the import of this phrase, which I shall
hereafter explain; and not, as Marcellus has done, from a single
passage to subvert one of the most important doctrines of the Church.'

"These and many other such expressions are found in the first book of
Eusebius Pamphilus against Marcellus; and in his third book, declaring
in what sense the term creature is to be taken, he says: `Accordingly
these things being established, it follows that in the same sense as
that which preceded, these words also are to be understood, The Lord
created me in the beginning of his ways on account of his works. For
although he says that he was created, it is not as if he should say
that he had arrived at existence from what was not, nor that he himself
also was made of nothing like the rest of the creatures, which some
have erroneously supposed: but as subsisting, living, pre-existing, and
being before the constitution of the whole world; and having been
appointed to rule the universe by his Lord and Father: the word created
being here used instead of ordained or constituted. Certainly the
apostle expressly called the rulers and governors among men creature,
when he said, Submit yourselves to every human creature for the Lord's
sake; whether to the king as supreme, or to governors as those sent by
him. The prophet also does not use the word zktisencreated in the sense
of made of that which had no previous existence, when he says, Prepare,
Israel, to invoke thy God. For behold he who confirms the thunder,
creates the Spirit, and announces his Christ unto men. For God did not
then create the Spirit when he declared his Christ to all men, since
There is nothing new under the sun; but the Spirit was, and subsisted
before: but he was sent at what time the apostles were gathered
together, when like thunder, There came a sound from heaven as of a
rushing mighty wind: and they were filled with the Holy Spirit. And
thus they declared unto all men the Christ of God in accordance with
that prophecy which says, Behold he who confirms the thunder, creates
the spirit, and announces his Christ unto men: the word creates being
used instead of sends down, or appoints; and thunder in a similar way
implying the preaching of the Gospel. Again he that says, Create in me
a clean heart, O God, said not this as if he had no heart; but prayed
that his mind might be purified. Thus also it is said, That he might
create the two into one new man, instead of unite. Consider also
whether this passage is not of the same kind, Clothe yourselves with
the new man, which is created according to God; and this, if,
therefore, any one be in Christ, he is a new creature, and Whatever
other expressions of a similar nature any one may find who shall
carefully search the divinely-inspired Scripture. Wherefore one should
not be surprised if in this passage, The Lord created me the beginning
of his ways, the term created is used metaphorically, instead of
appointed, or constituted.'

"These quotations from the books of Eusebius against Marcellus have
been adduced to confute those who have slanderously attempted to
traduce and criminate him. Neither can they prove that Eusebius
attributes a beginning of subsistence to the Son of God, although they
may find him often using the expressions of dispensation: and
especially so, because he was an emulator and admirer of the works of
Origen, in which those who are able to comprehend that author's
writings, will perceive it to be everywhere stated that the Son was
begotten of the Father. These remarks have been made in passing, in
order to refute those who have misrepresented Eusebius."

Sozomen in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1.).

"I at first felt strongly inclined to trace the course of events from
the very commencement; but on reflecting that similar records of the
past, up to their own time, had been compiled by the learned Clemens
and Hegesippus, successors of the apostles, by Africanus the historian
and Eusebius surnamed Pamphilus, a man intimately acquainted with the
sacred Scriptures and the writings of the Greek poets and historians, I
merely drew up an epitome in two books of all that is recorded to have
happened to the churches, from the ascension of Christ to the
deposition of Licinius."

Victorius in the Paschal Canon.

"Reviewing therefore the trustworthy histories of the ancients, namely
the Chronicles and prologue of the blessed Eusebius, bishop of
Caesarea, a city in Palestine, a man pre-eminently accomplished and
learned; and likewise those things which have been added to these same
Chronicles by Jerome of sacred memory."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Chromatius and Heliodorus, prefixed to the
Martyrology which bears Jerome's Name.

"It is evident that our Lord Jesus Christ obtains triumphs at every
martyrdom of his saints, whose sufferings we find described by the
saintly Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. For when Constantine Augustus
came to Caesarea and told the celebrated bishop to ask some favors
which should benefit the church at Caesarea, it is said that Eusebius
answered: That a church enriched by its own resources was under no
necessity of asking favors, yet that he himself had an unalterable
desire, that whatever had been done in the Roman republic against God's
saints by successive judges in the whole Roman world they should search
out by a careful examination of the public records; and that they
should draw from the archives themselves and send to Eusebius himself,
by royal command, the names of the martyrs: under what judge, in what
province or city, upon what day, and with what steadfastness, they had
obtained the reward of their suffering. Whence it has come about that,
being an able narrator and a diligent historiographer, he has both
composed an Ecclesiastical History and has set forth the triumphs of
nearly all of the martyrs of all the Roman provinces."

Pope Gelasius in his Decree concerning the Apocryphal Books.

"Likewise as to the Chronicles of Eusebius and the books of his
Ecclesiastical History, although in the first book of his narration he
has grown cold, and has afterwards written one book in praise and in
defense of Origen the schismatic, yet on account of his singular
knowledge of things which pertain to instruction, we do not say that
they ought to be rejected."

The same in his book On the Two Natures.

"That saying the same thing with one heart and one mouth we may also
believe what we have received from our forefathers, and, God giving
them to us, that we may hand them down to posterity to be believed in,
with which things the adduced testimony of the Catholic masters, being
summed up, bear witness that a united faith in a gracious God endures."

And a little farther on.

"From the exposition of the seventh psalm, by Eusebius, bishop in
Palestine, by surname Pamphili, etc. Likewise from his Praeparatio
Evangelica, Book VII."

Pope Pelagius II. in his Third Epistle to Elias of Aquileia and other
Bishops of Istria.

"For, indeed, among haeresiarchs who can be found worse than Origen,
and among historiographers who more honorable than Eusebius? And who of
us does not know with how great praises Eusebius extols Origen in his
books? But because the holy Church deals more kindly with the hearts of
her faithful ones than she does severely with their words, neither
could the testimony of Eusebius remove him from his proper place among
heretics, nor on the other hand has she condemned Eusebius for the
fault of praising Origen."

Evagrius, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 1).

"Eusebius Pamphili--an especially able writer, to the extent, in
particular, of inducing his readers to embrace our religion, though
failing to perfect them in the faith--and Sozomen, Theodoret, and
Socrates have produced a most excellent record of the advent of our
compassionate God, and his ascension into heaven, and of all that has
been achieved in the endurance of the divine Apostles, as well as of
the other martyrs," etc.

Gregory the Great in his Epistle to Eulogius, Bishop of Alexandria.

"I have now become one of the number of hearers, to whom your Holiness
has taken the pains to write, that we ought to transmit the deeds of
all the martyrs which have been collected by Eusebius of Caesarea in
the age of Constantine of holy memory. But I was not aware before
receiving your Holiness' letter whether these things had been collected
or not. I therefore am thankful that being informed by the writings of
your most holy learning, I have begun to know what I did not know
before. For excepting these things which are contained in the books of
this same Eusebius On the deeds of the holy martyrs, I have met with
nothing else in the archives of this our church, nor in the libraries
of Rome, except some few collected in a single volume."

Gelasius of Cyzicus in his Second Book On the Council of Nicaea (chap.
1).

"Let us hear now what says this the most illustrious husbandman in
ecclesiastical farming, the most truth-loving Eusebius, surnamed after
the celebrated Pamphilus. Licinius, indeed, he says, having followed
the same path of impiety with the ungodly tyrants, has justly been
brought to the same precipice with them, etc. (which may be found at
the end of the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History). As to
Eusebius Pamphili, the most trustworthy of ancient ecclesiastical
historians, who has investigated and set forth so many struggles,
having made a choice from among his simply written works, we say that
in all ten books of his Ecclesiastical History he has left behind an
accurately written work. Beginning with the advent of our Lord he has,
not without much labor, proceeded as far as those times. For how else
could it be with him who took so great care to preserve for us the
harmony of this collection? But as I have just said, he brought to bear
upon it much study and an untold amount of labor. But let no one
suppose, from those things which have been alleged with regard to him,
that this man ever adopted the heresy of Arius; but let him be sure,
that even if he did speak somewhat of, and did write briefly concerning
the conjectures of Arius, he certainly did not do it on account of his
entertaining the impious notion of that man, but from artless
simplicity, as indeed he himself fully assures us in his Apology, which
he distributed generally among orthodox bishops."

The author of the Alexandrian Chronicle (p. 582).

"The very learned Eusebius Pamphili has written thus: As the Jews
crucified Christ at the feast, so they all perished at their own
feast."

Nicephorus in the Sixth Book of his History (chap. 37).

"Upon whose authority also we know of the divine Pamphilus as both
living the life of a philosopher and wearing the dignity of presbyter
in that place. His life and every event in it, also his establishing in
that place the study of sacred and profane philosophy, also his
confession of his religion in divers persecutions, his struggles, and
at last his wearing the martyr's crown, Eusebius his nephew, who had
such a regard for him as to take from him his surname, has comprehended
in detail in one separate book; to this we refer those who may wish to
find out accurately concerning him. This Eusebius, indeed, although
having prosecuted many studies, especially excels in the study of
sacred literature. His life extended until the time of Constantius.
Being a man pre-eminently Christian, and endowed with great zeal for
Christ, he has written the Praeparatio Evangelica in fifteen books, and
in ten more the Demonstratio Evangelica. He was also the first one to
take in hand this subject, having been the first to call his book an
Ecclesiastical History; this work is contained in ten volumes. There is
also another book of his extant which he entitled Canons, in which he
accurately investigates chronological matters. He has also composed
five books On the Life of Constantine, and another addressed to him
which he calls triakontaeterikon. To Stephanus he also dedicates
another concerning those things in the sacred Gospels which have been
called in question; and he has also left behind divers other works
which are of great benefit to the Church. Apart from being such a man
as this, he in many ways seems to uphold the opinions of Arius," etc.

From the ms. Acts of Pope Silvester.

"Eusebius Pamphili, in writing his Ecclesiastical History, has in every
case omitted to mention those things which he has pointed out in other
works; for he has put into eleven books the sufferings of the martyrs,
bishops, and confessors, who have suffered in almost all the provinces.
But indeed as to the sufferings of women and maidens, such as with
manly fortitude suffered for the sake of Christ the Lord, he records
nothing. He is, moreover, the only one who has set forth in their order
the sufferings of the bishops, from the Apostle Peter down. Moreover,
he drew up for the benefit of the public a catalogue of the pontiffs of
those cities and apostolic seats; that is, of the great city of Rome,
and the cities of Alexandria and Antioch. Of the number then of those
of whom, up to his own times, the above-mentioned author wrote in the
Greek tongue, this man's life he was unable to paraphrase; that is, the
life of the saint Silvester," etc.

An ancient author in the Passion of the Holy Valerian.

"The glorious struggles of the most blessed martyrs, for the honor of
Christ the Lord and of our God, are celebrated by perpetual services
and an annual solemnity, that while our faithful people know the faith
of the martyrs, they may also rejoice in their triumphs, and may rest
assured that it is by the protection of these that they themselves are
to be protected. For it is held in repute that Eusebius the historian,
of sacred memory, bishop of the city of Caesarea, a most blessed priest
of excellent life, very learned also in ecclesiastical matters, and to
be venerated for his extraordinary carefulness, set forth for every
city, in so far as the truth was able to be ascertained, the Holy
Spirit announcing the deeds that had been done,--inasmuch as the cities
of single provinces and localities or towns have merited being made
famous by the heavenly triumphs of martyrs,--set forth, I say, in the
time of what rulers the innumerable persecutions were inflicted at the
command of officials. Who, although he has not described entire the
sufferings of individual martyrs, yet has truly intimated why they
ought to be described or celebrated by faithful and devoted Christians.
Thus this faithful husbandman has cultivated the grace of God, which
has been scattered abroad in all the earth, while, as it were, from a
single grain of wheat, plenteous harvests are produced on account of
the fertility of the field, and go on in multiplied abundance. So
through the narration of the above-mentioned man, diffused from the
fountain of a single book, with the ever-spreading writings of the
faithful, the celebrating of the sufferings of the martyrs has watered
all the earth."

Usuardus in his Martyrology.

"On the twenty-first day of June, in Palestine, the holy Eusebius,
bishop and confessor, a man of most excellent genius, and a
historiographer."

Notker in his Martyrology.

"On the twenty-first day of June, the deposition in Caesarea of the
holy bishop Eusebius."

Manecharius in his Epistle to Ceraunius, Bishop of Paris.

"Unceasing in thy continual efforts to equal in merit the very
excellent persons of the most blessed bishops in all the conversation
of the priesthood, zealous to adorn thyself every day with holy
religion, by thy zeal for reading thou hast searched through the whole
of the doctrines of the sacred Scriptures. Now as an addition to thy
praiseworthiness thou dost faithfully purpose, in the city of Paris, to
gather together for the love of religion, the deeds of the holy
martyrs. Wherefore thou art worthy of being compared in zeal with
Eusebius of Caesarea, and art worthy of being remembered perpetually
with an equal share of glory."

From an old Manuscript Breviary of the Lemovicensian Church.

"Of the holy Eusebius, bishop and confessor.

"Lesson 1. Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, on account of his
friendship with Pamphilus the martyr, took from him the surname of
Pamphili; inasmuch as along with this same Pamphilus he was a most
diligent investigator of sacred literature. The man indeed is very
worthy of being remembered in these times, both for his skill in many
things, and for his wonderful genius, and by both Gentiles and
Christians he was held distinguished and most noble among philosophers.
This man, after having for a time labored in behalf of the Arian
heresy, coming to the council of Nicaea, inspired by the Holy Spirit,
followed the decision of the Fathers, and thereafter up to the time of
his death lived in a most holy manner in the orthodox faith.

"Lesson 2. He was, moreover, very zealous in the study of the sacred
Scriptures, and along with Pamphilus the martyr was a most diligent
investigator of sacred literature. At the same time he has written many
things, but especially the following books: The Praeparatio Evangelica,
the Ecclesiastical History, Against Porphyry, a very bitter enemy of
the Christians; he has also composed Six Apologies in Behalf of Origen,
a Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, from whom on account of friendship he
took his surname, in three books; likewise very learned Commentaries on
the hundred and fifty Psalms.

"Lesson 3. Moreover, as we read, after having ascertained the
sufferings of many holy martyrs in all the provinces, and the lives of
confessors and virgins, he has written concerning these saints twenty
books; while on account of these books therefore, and especially on
account of his Praeparatio Evangelica, he was held most distinguished
among the Gentiles, because of his love of truth he contemned the
ancestral worship of the gods. He has written also a Chronicle,
extending from the first year of Abraham up to the year 300 a.d., which
the divine Hieronymus has continued. Finally this Eusebius, after the
conversion of Constantine the Great, was united to him by strong
friendship as long as he lived."

In the Breviary of the same church, June twenty-first.

"Omnipotent, eternal God, who dost permit us to take part in the
festivities in honor of Eusebius, thy holy confessor and priest, bring
us, we pray thee, through his prayers, into the society of heavenly
joys, through our Lord Jesus Christ," etc. [7]

From the book On the Lights of the Church.

"Eusebius of Caesarea, the key of the Scriptures and custodian of the
New Testament, is proved by the Greeks to be greater than many in his
treatises. There are three celebrated works of his which truly testify
to this: the Canons of the Four Gospels, which set forth and defend the
New Testament, ten books of Ecclesiastical History, and the Chronicon,
that is, a chronological summary. We have never found any one who has
been able to follow in all his foot-prints."

From the Miscellanies of Theodore Metochita (chap. 19)

"Eusebius Pamphili was also a Palestinian by birth, but as he himself
says, he sojourned for quite a long time in Egypt. He was a very
learned man, and it is evident indeed that he published many books, and
that he used language thus."
________________________________________________________________

[6] The following Testimonies of the Ancients were collected by
Valesius, and are printed in the original languages in his edition of
Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, at the close of his Vita Eusebii. The
order of Valesius has been preserved in the following pages, but
occasionally a passage, for the sake of greater clearness, has been
given more fully than by him. A few extracts have been omitted (as
noted below), and one or two, overlooked by him, have been added. The
extracts have all been translated from the original for this edition,
with the exception of the quotations from the Life of Constantine, and
from the Greek Ecclesiastical Historians,--Socrates, Sozomen,
Theodoret, and Evagrius,--which have been copied, with a few necessary
corrections, from the version found in Bagster's edition of the Greek
Ecclesiastical Historians. The translation has been made at my request
by Mr. James McDonald, of Shelbyville, Ky., a member of the senior
class (1890) of Lane Theological Seminary.

[7] Valesius adds brief extracts from other missals of the same church,
which it is not necessary to quote here.
________________________________________________________________

Testimonies of the Ancients Against Eusebius.

__________

From the Epistle of Arius to Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia (in
Theodoret's Eccles. Hist. I. 5). [8]

"Eusebius, your brother bishop of Caesarea, Theodotius, Paulinus,
Athanasius, Gregory, AEtius, and all the bishops of the East, have been
condemned because they say that God had an existence prior to that of
his Son."

From the Book of Marcellus of Ancyra against the Arians.

"Having happened upon a letter of Narcissus, bishop of Neronias, which
he wrote to one Chrestus and to Euphronius and to Eusebius, in which it
seems that Hosius, the bishop, had asked him whether or not like
Eusebius of Palestine he believed in the existence of two essences, I
read in the writing that he answered that he believed in the existence
of three essences."

From the Synodical Epistle of the Bishops of Egypt, met in the City of
Alexandria, to All the Bishops of the Catholic Church (which Athanasius
gives in his second apology against the Arians).

"For what sort of a council of bishops was that? What sort of an
assembly having truth for its aim? Who out of the great majority of
them was not our enemy? Did not the followers of Eusebius rise up
against us on account of the Arian madness? Did not they bring forward
the others who held the same opinions as themselves? Were we not
continually writing against them as against those who held the opinions
of Arius? Was not Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine accused by our
confessors of sacrificing?"

Epiphanius in the Heresy of the Meletians (Haer. LXVIII.).

"The emperor upon hearing these things becomes very angry and orders
that a synod be convoked in Phoenicia in the city of Tyre; he also gave
orders that Eusebius and some others should act as judges: these
persons moreover had leaned somewhat too far toward the vulgarity of
the Arians. There were also summoned the bishops of the Catholic Church
in Egypt, also certain men subject to Athanasius, who were likewise
great and who kept their lives transparent before God, among whom was
the great Potamo of blessed memory, bishop and confessor of Heraclea.
But there were also present Meletians, the chief accusers of
Athanasius. Being zealous for truth and for orthodoxy, the
above-mentioned Potamo of blessed memory, a free-spoken man, who
regarded the person of no man,--for he had been deprived of an eye in
the persecution for the truth,--seeing Eusebius sitting down and acting
as judge, and Athanasius standing up, overcome by grief and weeping, as
is the wont with true men, he addressed Eusebius in a loud voice,
saying, `Dost thou sit down, Eusebius, and is Athanasius, an innocent
man, judged by thee? Who could bear such things? Do thou tell me, wert
thou not in confinement with me at the time of the persecution? I have
parted with an eye for the sake of the truth, but thou neither seemest
to be maimed at all in body, nor hast thou suffered martyrdom, but art
alive, and in no part mutilated. How didst thou escape from the
confinement unless that thou didst promise those who have inflicted
upon us the violence of persecution to perform the ungodly act, or
didst actually perform it?'"

From the Epistle of the Catholic Bishops of Egypt to the Synod of Tyre
(which Athanasius gives in the above-mentioned Apology).

"For ye also know, as we have said before, that they are our enemies,
and ye know why Eusebius of Caesarea has become our enemy since last
year."

Athanasius in his Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea.

"The strange thing is that Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, who had
denied on one day, but on the next day had subscribed, sent to his
church, saying that this is the faith of the Church, and that this is
the tradition of the Fathers. He plainly showed to all that before they
had been in error, and had been vainly striving after the truth; for
although he was then ashamed to write in just these terms, and excused
himself to the Church as he himself wished, yet he plainly wishes to
imply this in his Epistle, by his not denying the `Homooeusion,' `one
in substance,' and `of the substance.' He got into serious difficulty,
for in defending himself, he went on to accuse the Arians, because,
having written that `the Son did not exist before that he was
begotten,' they thereby denied that he existed before his birth in the
flesh."

The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.

"Most of all, what would Acacius say to Eusebius his own teacher? who
not only signed in the synod at Nicaea, but also made it known by
letter to the people under him that that was the true faith, which had
been agreed upon at the council of Nicaea; for although he defended
himself as he pleased through the letter, yet he did not deny the
grounds taken. But he also accused the Arians, since, in saying that
`the Son did not exist before that he was begotten,' they also deny
that he existed before Mary."

The same, in his Epistle to the Bishops of Africa.

"This also was known all the while to Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea,
who, at first identifying himself with the Arian heresy, and having
afterwards signed at the self-same synod of Nicaea, wrote to his own
particular friends, firmly maintaining that, `We have known of certain
learned and renowned bishops and writers among the ancients who have
used the term homoousios in reference to the divinity of the Father and
Son.'"

The same, in his Treatise on the Synods of Ariminum and Seleucia.

"Eusebius of Caesarea in Palestine, writing to Euphration the bishop,
did not fear to say openly that Christ is not true God."

Jerome, in his Epistle to Ctesiphon against the Pelagians.

"He did this in the name of the holy martyr Pamphilus, that he might
designate with the name of the martyr Pamphilus the first of the six
books in defense of Origen which were written by Eusebius of Caesarea,
whom every one knows to have been an Arian."

The same, in his Second Book against Rufinus.

"As soon as he leaves the harbor he runs his ship aground. For, quoting
from the Apology of Pamphilus the Martyr (which we have proved to be
the work of Eusebius, prince of Arians)," etc.

The same, in his First Book against Rufinus.

"Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, of whom I have made mention above, in
the sixth book of his Apology in behalf of Origen, lays this same
charge against Methodius the bishop and martyr, which you lay against
me in my praises [of him]; he says: `How did Methodius dare to write
against Origen after having said this and that concerning his
opinions?' This is no place to speak in behalf of a martyr, for not all
things ought to be discussed in all places. Now let it suffice to have
barely touched upon the matter, that this same thing was charged
against a most renowned and most eloquent martyr by an Arian, which you
as a friend praise in me, and, being offended, censure me for."

The same, in his Epistle to Minervius and Alexander.

"I both in manhood and in extreme old age am of the same opinion, that
Origen and Eusebius of Caesarea were indeed very learned men, but went
astray in the truth of their opinions."

Socrates, in the First Book of his Ecclesiastical History (chap. 23).

"Eusebius Pamphilus says that immediately after the Synod Egypt became
agitated by intestine divisions; but as he does not assign the reason
for this, some have accused him of disingenuousness, and have even
attributed his failure to specify the causes of these dissensions to a
determination on his part not to give his sanction to the proceedings
at Nice."

Again, in the same chapter.

"Eustathius, bishop of Antioch, accuses Eusebius Pamphilus of
perverting the Nicene Creed; but Eusebius denies that he violates that
exposition of the faith, and recriminates, saying that Eustathius was a
defender of the opinion of Sabellius. In consequence of these
misunderstandings, each of them wrote volumes as if contending against
adversaries: and although it was admitted on both sides that the Son of
God has a distinct person and existence, and all acknowledged that
there is one God in a Trinity of Persons; yet, from what cause I am
unable to divine, they could not agree among themselves, and therefore
were never at peace."

Theodoritus, in his Interpretation of the Epistle of Paul to the
Hebrews, speaking of the Arians, writes as follows:

"If not even this is sufficient to persuade them, it at least behooves
them to believe Eusebius of Palestine, whom they call the chief
advocate of their own doctrines."

Nicetas, in his Thesaurus of the Orthodox Faith, Book V. Chap. 7.

"Moreover, Theodore of Mopsuestia relates that there were only nine
persons out of all whom the decrees of the Synod did not please, and
that their names are as follows: Theognis of Nicaea, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, Eusebius of Caesarea in
Palestine, Narcissus of Neronias in Cilicia, which is now called
Irenopolis, Paulinus of Tyre, Menophantus of Ephesus, Secundus of
Ptolemais, which borders upon Egypt, and Theonas of Marmarica." [9]

Antipater, Bishop of Bostra, in his First Book against Eusebius'
Apology for Origen.

"I deny that the man has yet arrived at an accurate knowledge of the
doctrines; wherefore he ought to be given place to so far as regards
his great learning, but as regards his knowledge of doctrine he ought
not. But, moreover, we know him to have been altogether lacking in such
accurate knowledge."

And a little farther on.

"So now, that we may not seem to be trampling upon the man,--concerning
whom it is not our purpose for the present to speak,--examining into
the accuracy of his Apology, we may go on to show that both were
heretics, both he who composed the Apology, and he in whose behalf it
was composed."

And farther on.

"For as to your attempting to show that others as well as he [Origen]
have spoken of the subordination of the Son to the Father, we may not
at first wonder at it, for such is your opinion and that of your
followers; wherefore we say nothing concerning this matter for the
present, since it was long ago submitted and condemned at the general
Council."

From the Acts of the Seventh OEcumenical Council.

"For who of the faithful ones in the Church, and who of those who have
obtained a knowledge of true doctrine, does not know that Eusebius
Pamphili has given himself over to false ways of thinking, and has
become of the same opinion and of the same mind with those who follow
after the opinions of Arius? In all his historical books he calls the
Son and Word of God a creature, a servant, and to be adored as second
in rank. But if any speaking in his defense say that he subscribed in
the council, we may admit that that is true; but while with his lips he
has respected the truth, in his heart he is far from it, as all his
writings and epistles go to show. But if from time to time, on account
of circumstances or from different causes, he has become confused or
has changed around, sometimes praising those who hold to the doctrines
of Arius, and at other times feigning the truth, he shows himself to
be, according to James the brother of our Lord, a double-minded man,
unstable in all his ways; and let him not think that he shall receive
anything of the Lord. For if with the heart he had believed unto
righteousness, and with the mouth had confessed the truth unto
salvation, he would have asked forgiveness for his writings, at the
same time correcting them. But this he has by no means done, for he
remained like AEthiops with his skin unchanged. In interpreting the
verse `I said to the Lord, Thou art my Lord,' he has strayed far away
from the true sense, for this is what he says: `By the laws of nature
every son's father must be his lord; wherefore God who begat him must
be at the same time God, Lord, and Father of the only-begotten Son of
God.' So also in his epistle to the holy Alexander, the teacher of the
great Athanasius, which begins thus: `With what anxiety and with what
care have I set about writing this letter,' in most open blasphemy he
speaks as follows concerning Arius and his followers: `Thy letter
accuses them of saying that the Son was made out of nothing, like all
men. But they have produced their own epistle which they wrote to thee,
in which they give an account of their faith, and expressly confess
that "the God of the law and of the prophets and of the New Testament,
before eternal ages begat an only-begotten Son, through whom also he
made the ages and the universe; and that he begat him not in
appearance, but in truth, and subjected him to his own will,
unchangeable and immutable, a perfect creature of God, but not as one
of the creatures." If, therefore, the letter received from them tells
the truth, they wholly contradict thee, in that they confess that the
Son of God who existed before eternal ages, and through whom he made
the world, is unchangeable and a perfect creature of God, but not as
one of the creatures. But thy epistle accuses them of saying that the
Son was made as one of the creatures. They do not say this, but clearly
declare that he was not as one of the creatures. See if cause is not
immediately given them again to attack and to misrepresent whatever
they please. Again thou findest fault with them for saying that He who
is begat him who was not. I wonder if any one is able to say anything
else than that. For if He who is is one, it is plain that everything
has been made by Him and after Him. But if He who is is not the only
one, but there was also a Son existing, how did He who is beget him who
was existing? For thus those existing would be two.' These things then
Eusebius wrote to the illustrious Alexander; but there are also other
epistles of his directed to the same holy man, in which are found
various blasphemies in defense of the followers of Arius. So also, in
writing to the bishop Euphration, he blasphemes most openly; his letter
begins thus: `I return to my Lord all thanks'; and farther on: `For we
do not say that the Son was with the Father, but that the Father was
before the Son. But the Son of God himself, knowing well that he was
greater than all, and knowing that he was other than the Father, and
less than and subject to Him, very piously teaches this to us also when
he says, "The Father who sent me is greater than I."' And farther on:
`Since the Son also is himself God, but not true God.' So then from
these writings of his he shows that he holds to the doctrines of Arius
and his followers. And with this rebellious heresy of theirs the
inventors of that Arian madness hold to one nature in hypostatic union,
and affirm that our Lord took upon himself a body without soul, in his
scheme of redemption, affirming that the divine nature supplied the
purposes and movements of the soul: that, as Gregory the Divine says,
they may ascribe suffering to the Deity; and it is evident that those
who ascribe suffering to the Deity are Patripassians. Those who share
in this heresy do not allow images, as the impious Severus did not, and
Peter Cnapheus, and Philoxenus of Hierapolis, and all their followers,
the many-headed yet headless hydra. So then Eusebius, who belongs to
this faction, as has been shown from his epistles and historical
writings, as a Patripassian rejected the image of Christ," etc. [10]

Photius, in his 144th Epistle to Constantine.

"That Eusebius (whether slave or friend of Pamphilus I know not) was
carried off by Arianism, his books loudly proclaim. And he, feeling
repentance as he pretends, and against his will, confesses to his
infirmity; although by his repentance he rather shows that he has not
repented. For he cannot show, by means of those writings in which he
would seem to be defending himself, that he has withdrawn from his
former heretical doctrines, nor can he show that he agreed with the
holy and OEcumenical Synod. But he speaks of it as a marvel that the
upholders of the Homoousion should concur with him in sentiment and
agree with him in opinion: and this fact both many other things and the
epistle written by him to his own people at Caesarea accurately
confirm. But that from the beginning he inwardly cherished the Arian
doctrines, and that up to the end of his life he did not cease
following them, many know, and it is easy to gather it from many
sources; but that he shared also in the infirmity of Origen, namely,
the error with regard to the common resurrection of us all, is to most
persons unknown. But if thou thyself examine carefully his books, thou
shalt see that he was none the less truly overcome by that deadly
disease than he was by the Arian madness."

Photius, in his Bibliotheca (chap. 13).

"Of the Objection and Defense of Eusebius two books have been read;
also other two, which although differing in some respects from the
former two, are in other respects the same with regard to both diction
and thought. But he presents certain difficulties with regard to our
blameless religion as having originated with the Greeks. These he
correctly solves, although not in all cases. But as regards his
diction, it is by no means either pleasing or brilliant. The man is
indeed very learned, although as regards shrewdness of mind and
firmness of character, as well as accuracy in doctrine, he is
deficient. For also in many places in these books it is plain to be
seen that he blasphemes against the Son, calling him a second cause,
and general-in-chief, and other terms which have had their origin in
the Arian madness. It seems that he flourished in the time of
Constantine the Great. He was also an ardent admirer of the excellences
of the holy martyr Pamphilus, for which cause some say that he took
from him the surname Pamphili."

Photius, in the Same Work (chap. 127).

"There has been read the work of Eusebius Pamphili In praise of the
great emperor Constantine, consisting of four books. In this is
contained the whole life of the man, starting with his very boyhood,
also whatever deeds of his belong to ecclesiastical history, until he
departed from life at the age of sixty-four. Eusebius is, however, even
in this work, like himself in diction, except that his discourse has
risen to a somewhat more than usual brilliancy, and that sometimes he
has made use of more flowery expressions than he is wont. However, of
pleasantness and beauty of expression there is little, as indeed is the
case in his other works. He inserts, moreover, in this work of his in
four books very many passages from the whole decalogue of his
Ecclesiastical History. He says that Constantine the Great himself also
was baptized in Nicomedia, he having put off his baptism until then,
because he desired to be baptized in the Jordan. Who baptized him he
does not clearly show. However, as to the heresy of Arius, he does not
definitely state whether he holds that opinion, or whether he has
changed; or even whether Arius held correct or incorrect views,
although he ought to have made mention of these things, because the
synod occupied an important place among the deeds of Constantine the
Great, and it again demands a detailed account of them. But he does
state that a `controversy' arose between Arius and Alexander (this is
the name he cunningly gives to the heresy), and that the God-fearing
prince was very much grieved at this controversy, and strove by
epistles and through Hosius, who was then bishop of Cordova, to bring
back the dissenting parties into peace and concord, they having laid
aside the strife existing between them with regard to such questions;
and that when he could not persuade them to do this he convoked a synod
from all quarters, and that it dissolved into peace the strife that had
arisen. These things, however, are not described accurately or clearly;
it would seem then that he is ashamed, as it were, and does not wish to
make public the vote cast against Arius in the Synod, and the just
retribution of those who were his companions in impiety and who were
cast out together with him. Finally, he does not even mention the
terrible fate which was inflicted by God upon Arius in the sight of
all. None of these things he brings to the light, nor has he drawn up
an account of the Synod and the things that were done in it. Whence,
also, when about to write a narrative concerning the divine Eustathius,
he does not even mention his name, nor what things were threatened and
executed against him; but referring these things also to sedition and
tumult, he again speaks of the calmness of the bishops, who having been
convened in Antioch by the zeal and cooperation of the Emperor, changed
the sedition and tumult into peace. Likewise as to what things were
maliciously contrived against the ever-conquering Athanasius, when he
set about making his history cover these things, he says that
Alexandria again was filled with sedition and tumult, and that this was
calmed by the coming of the bishops, who had the imperial aid. But he
by no means makes it clear who was the leader of the sedition, what
sort of sedition it was, or by what means the strife was settled. He
also keeps up almost the same mode of dissimulating in his account of
the contentions existing among bishops with respect to doctrines, and
their disagreements on other matters."

Joannes Zonaras, in his Third Volume, in which he relates the Deeds of
Constantine

"Even Eusebius Pamphili, bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, was at that
time one of those who upheld the doctrines of Arius. He is said to have
afterwards withdrawn from the opinion of Arius, and to have become of
like mind with those who hold that the Son is coequal and of the same
nature with the Father, and to have been received into communion by the
holy Fathers. Moreover, in the Acts of the first Synod, he is found to
have defended the faithful. These things are found thus narrated by
some; but he makes them to appear doubtful by certain things which he
is seen to have written in his Ecclesiastical History. For in many
places in the above-mentioned work he seems to be following after
Arius. In the very beginning of his book, where he quotes David as
saying, `He spake and they were made, he commanded and they were
established,' he says that the Father and Maker is to be considered as
maker and universal ruler, governing by a kingly nod, and that the
second after him in authority, the divine Word, is subject to the
commands of the Father. And farther on he says, that he, as being the
power and wisdom of the Father, is entrusted with the second place in
the kingdom and rule over all. And again, a little farther on, that
there is also a certain essence, living and subsisting before the
world, which ministers to the God and Father of the universe for the
creation of things that are created. Also Solomon, in the person of the
wisdom of God, says, `The Lord created me in the beginning of his
ways,' etc., and farther on he says: And besides all this, as the
pre-existent word of God, who also preexisted before all ages created,
he received divine honor from the Father, and is worshipped as God.
These and other things show that Eusebius agreed with Arian doctrines,
unless some one say that they were written before his conversion."

Suidas, under the word Diodoros

"Diodorus, a monk, who was bishop of Tarsus in Cilicia, in the times of
Julian and Valens, wrote divers works, as Theodorus Lector states in
his Ecclesiastical History. These are as follows: A Chronicle, which
corrects the error of Eusebius Pamphilus with regard to chronology,"
etc.

The same Suidas, from Sophronius.

"Eusebius Pamphili, a devotee of the Arian heresy, bishop of Caesarea
in Palestine, a man zealous in the study of the holy Scriptures, and
along with Pamphilus the martyr a most careful investigator of sacred
literature, has published many books, among which are the following."
[11]
________________________________________________________________

[8] This extract is not given by Valesius.

[9] Valesius inserts after this extract a brief and unimportant
quotation from Eulogius of Alexandria, which, however, is so
obscure,--severed as it is from its context, which is not accessible to
me,--that no translation of it has been attempted.

[10] This extract is translated from the original Greek of the Acts of
the Second Nicene Council, Act VI. Tom. V. (as given by Labbe and
Cossartius in their Concilia, Tom. VII. p. 495 sq.). Valesius gives
only a Latin translation, and that in a fragmentary form.

[11] The remainder of this extract from Sophronius is a translation of
the chapter of Jerome's de viris illustribus, which is quoted above, on
p. 60, and is therefore omitted at this point. Valesius adds some
extracts from Baronius and Scaliger; but inasmuch as they are to be
classed with modern rather than with ancient writers, it has seemed
best to omit the quotations from their works.

Literature Archives · Home

Eusebius Pamphilius

Archives

Church History

Church History
by Eusebius Pamphilius

Church History by Eusebius Pamphilius

Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Based on the print version: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Public Domain.

Church History
by Eusebius Pamphilius

Book 1 · Book 2 · Book 3 · Book 4 · Book 5 · Book 6 · Book 7 · Book 8 · Book 9 · Book 10 · Preface

We believe the following organizations are making a difference for the better in this world and encourage you to consider supporting them.

Oxfam International

Red Cross International

World Vision International

Page Design Copyright 2008 International Zeitschrift

Page Design Copyright 2008 International Zeitschrift

Literature Archives · Home Eusebius Pamphilius Archives Church History

Church History by Eusebius Pamphilius

Church History by Eusebius Pamphilius

Eusebius Pamphilius: Church History, Life of Constantine, Oration in Praise of Constantine. Translated by Rev. Arthur Cushman McGiffert, Ph.D. Edited by Philip Schaff and Henry Wace. Based on the print version: New York: Christian Literature Publishing Co., 1890. Public Domain.

Church History by Eusebius Pamphilius

Book 1 · Book 2 · Book 3 · Book 4 · Book 5 · Book 6 · Book 7 · Book 8 · Book 9 · Book 10 · Preface

Page Design Copyright 2008 International Zeitschrift

Literature Archives · Home

Eusebius Pamphilius

Archives

Church History

Church History
by Eusebius Pamphilius

Church History
by Eusebius Pamphilius