Eusebius of Cæsarea
Eusebius Pamphili, Bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine, the "Father of Church
History"; b. about 260; d. before 341.
LIFE
It will save lengthy digression if we at once speak of a document which
will often have to be referred to on account of its biographical
importance, viz., the letter written by Eusebius to his diocese in order
to explain his subscription to the Creed propounded by the Council of
Nicæa. After some preliminary remarks, the writer proceeds: "We first
transmit to you the writing concerning the faith which was put forward
by us, and then the second, which they have published after putting in
additions to our expressions. Now the writing presented by us, which
when read in the presence of our most religious emperor was declared to
have a right and approved character was as follows: [The Faith put
forward by us]. As we have received from the bishops before us both in
our first catechetical instruction and when we were baptized, and as we
have learned from the Divine Scriptures, and as we have believed and
taught in the presbyterate and in the office of bishop itself so now
likewise believing we offer to you our faith and it is thus." Then
follows a formal creed [Theodoret, Hist., I, 11; Socrates, Hist., I, 8;
St. Athanasius, de Dec. Syn. Nic. (appendix) and elsewhere. Translated
by Newman with notes in the Oxford Library of the Fathers (Select
Treatises of St. Athanasius, p. 59) and St. Athanasius, vol. I. The
translation given here is Dr. Hort's. The words in brackets are probably
genuine though not given by Socrates and St. Athanasius].
Dr. Hort in 1876 ("Two Dissertations", etc., pp. 56 sqq.) pointed out
that this creed was presumably that of the Church of Cæsarea of which
Eusebius was bishop. This view is widely accepted (cf. Lightfoot, art. "Euseb."
in "Dict. of Christ. Biog." — All references to Lightfoot, unless
otherwise stated, are to this article. — Sanday, "Journal of Theolog.
Studies", vol. I, p. 15; Gwatkin, "Studies of Arianism", p. 42, 2nd
edition; McGiffert, "Prolog. to C. H. of Euseb." in "Select Library of
Nic. and post-Nic. Fathers"; Duchesne, "Hist. de l'Eglise", vol. II, p.
149). According to this view it is natural to regard the introduction,
"As we have received" etc., as autobiographical, and to infer that
Eusebius had exercised the office of priesthood in the city of Cæsarea
before he became its bishop, and had received his earliest religious
instruction and the sacrament of Baptism there also. But other
interpretations of this document are given, one of which destroys, while
the other diminishes, its biographical value: (a) According to some the
creed proferred by Eusebius was drawn up as a formula to be subscribed
by all the bishops. It was they who were to say that it embodied what
they had been taught as catechumens and had taught as priests and
bishops. This seems to have been the view generally held before Hort,
and was Kattenbusch's view in 1804 (Das apostolische Symbol, vol. I, p.
231). One objection to this view may be noted. It makes all the
bishops equivalently say that before they received the episcopate they
had for some time exercised the duties of the priesthood. (b) Others
maintain that this creed was not the local creed of Cæsarea, but one
drawn up by Eusebius in his own justification as embodying what he had
always believed and taught. According to this interpretation the
preliminary statement still remains autobiographical; but it merely
informs us that the writer exercised the office of priest before he
became a bishop. This interpretation has been adopted by Kattenbusch in
his second volume (p. 239) published in 1900. One of the reasons which
he gives for his change of view is that when he was preparing his first
volume he used Socrates, who does not give the superscription which we
have printed in brackets. It is a vital matter with writers of the
school of Kattenbusch not to accept what seems the natural
interpretation of Eusebius's words, viz., that the creed he read before
the council was actually the one he had always used. If this is
admitted, "then", to quote Dr. Sanday, "I cannot but think that the
theory of Kattenbusch and Harnack [viz. that the Eastern creds were
daughters of the early Roman creed, and this latter did not reach the
East till about A. D. 272] breaks
breaks down altogether. Bishop Lightfoot … puts the birth of Eusebius
about 260 A. D., so that he would
be something like twelve years old when Aurelian intervened in the
affairs of Antioch. In other words he was in all probability already
baptized, and had already been catechised in the Cæsarean creed at a
time when, in the Kattenbusch-Harnack hypothesis, the parent of that
creed had not yet reached Antioch — much less Cæsarea or Jerusalem" (Journ.
Th. Studies, I, 15).
The passage just quoted shows that the date of Eusebius's birth is more
than a merely curious question. According to Lightfoot, it cannot have
been "much later than A. D. 260"
(p. 309); according to Harnack, "it can hardly be placed later than
260-265" (Chronologie, I, p. 106). The data from which they argue are
the persons and events which Eusebius describes as belonging to "our own
times". Thus, at the end of his account of the epistles of Dionysius of
Alexandria, he says he is now going to relate the events of "our own
times" (kath’ ‘emâs. — H. E., VII, 26). He then recounts how, at
Rome, Pope Dionysius (259-268) succeeded
Xystus, and about the same time Paul of Samosata became Bishop of
Antioch. Elsewhere (H. E., V, 28) he speaks of the same Paul as reviving
"in our own time" (kath’ ‘emâs) the heresy of Artemon. He also
speaks of the Alexandrian Dionysius (d. 265) in the same way (H. E.,
III, 28). He calls Manes, whom he places (H. E., VII, 31) during the
episcopate of Felix (270-274), "the maniac of yesterday and our own
timess" (Theophania, IV, 30). An historian might of course refer to
events recent, but before his own birth, as belonging to "our own
times"; e. g. a man of thirty might speak thus of the Franco-German war
in 1870. But the reference to Manes as "the maniac of yesterday"
certainly suggests a writer who is alluding to what happened within his
own personal recollection.
Concerning Eusebius's parentage we know absolutely nothing; but the fact
that he escaped with a short term of imprisonment during the terrible
Diocletian persecution, when his master Pamphilus and others of his
companions suffered martyrdom, suggests that he belonged to a family of
some influence and importance. His relations, later on, with the Emperor
Constantine point to the same conclusion. At some time during the last
twenty years of the third century he visited Antioch, where he made the
acquaintance of the priest Dorotheus, and heard him expound the
Scriptures (H. E., VII, 32). By a slip of the pen or the memory,
Lightfoot (p. 309) makes Dorotheus a priest of the Church of Cæsarea. In
296 he saw for the first time the future Emperor Constantine, as he
passed through Palestine in the company of
Diocletian (Vit. Const., I, 19).
At a date which cannot be fixed Eusebius made the acquaintance of
Pamphilus, the founder of the magnificent library which remained for
several centuries the great glory of the Church of Cæsarea. Pamphilus
came from Phœnicia, but at the time we are considering resided at
Cæsarea, where he presided over a college or school for students. A man
of noble birth, and wealthy, he sold his patrimony and gave the proceeds
to the poor. He was a great friend to indigent students, supplying them
to the best of his ability with the necessaries of life, and bestowing
on them copies of the Holy Scriptures. Too humble to write anything
himself, he spent his time in preparing accurate copies of the
Scriptures and other books, especially those of Origen. Eloquent
testimonies to the care bestowed by Pamphilus and Eusebius on the sacred
text are found in Biblical MSS. which have reproduced their colophons.
We give three specimens. (1) the following is prefixed to Ezechiel in
the codex Marchalianus. A facsimile of the original will be found in
Mai's "Bib. nov. Pat.", IV, p. 218, and in Migne. It is printed in
ordinary type in Swete's O. T. in Greek (vol. III, p. viii). It must be
remembered that Origen's own copy of the Hexapla was in the library of
Pamphilus. It had probably been deposited there by Origen himself.
The following was transcribed from a copy of the Father Apollinarius the
Coenobiarch, to which these words are subjoined: "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."
(2) At the end of the Book of Esdras, in the codex Sinaiticus, there is
the following note:—
It was compared with a very ancient copy that had been corrected by the
hand of the blessed martyr Pamphilus to which is appended in his own
hand this subscription: "It was transcribed and corrected according to
the Hexapla of Origen, Antoninus compared, I, Pamphilus, corrected." (Swete,
vol. II, p. 212.)
(3) The same codex and also the Vatican and Alexandrine quote a colophon
like the above, with the difference that Antoninus has become a
confessor, and Pamphilus is in prison — "Antoninus the confessor
compared, Pamphilus corrected". The volume to which this colophon was
subjoined began with I Kings and ended with Esther. Pamphilus was
certainly not idle in prison. To most of the books in the Syro- Hexaplar
is subjoined a note to the effect that they were translated from the
Hexapla in the library of Cæsarea and compared with a copy subscribed:
"I, Eusebius, corrected [the above] as carefully as I could" (Harnack, "Altchrist.
Lit.", pp. 544, 545).
May not the confessor Antoninus be the same person as the priest of that
name who, later on, with two companions interrupted the governor when he
was on the point of sacrificing, and was beheaded? (Mart. Pal., 9.) One
member of Pamphilus's household, Apphianus, had done the same a few
years before; and another, Ædesius, after being tortured and sent to the
mines, on obtaining his release provoked martyrdom at Alexandria by
going before the governor and rebuking him. Towards the end of 307
Pamphilus was arrested, horribly tortured, and consigned to prison.
Besides continuing his work of editing the Septuagint, he wrote, in
collaboration with Eusebius, a Defence of Origen which was sent to the
confessors in the mines — a wonderful gift from a man whose sides had
been curried with iron combs, to men with their right eyes burned out
and the sinews of their left legs cauterized. Early in 309 Pamphilus and
several of his disciples were beheaded. Out of devotion to his memory
Eusebius called himself Eusebius Pamphili, meaning, probably, that he
wished to be regarded as the bondsman of him whose name "it is not meet
that I should mention … without styling him my lord" (Mart. Pal., ed.
Cureton, p. 37). Mr. Gifford, in the introduction to his translation of
the "Præp. Evang.", has suggested another explanation on the authority
of an ancient scholion emanating from Cæsarea which calls Eusebius the
"son of Pamphilus". He argues further that Pamphilus, in order to make
Eusebius his heir, took the necessary step of adopting him.
During the persecution Eusebius visited Tyre and Egypt and witnessed
numbers of martyrdoms (H. E., VIII, vii and ix). He certainly did not
shun danger, and was at one time a prisoner. When, where, or how he
escaped death or any kind of mutilation, we do not know. An indignant
bishop, who had been one of his fellow-prisoners and "lost an eye for
the Truth", demanded at the Council of Tyre how "he came off scathless".
To this taunt — it was hardly a question — made under circumstances of
great provocation, Eusebius deigned no reply (Epiphan., Hær., lxviii, 8;
cf. St. Athanas., "Apol. c. Arian.", viii, 1). He had many enemies, yet
the charge of cowardice was never seriously made — the best proof that
it could not have been sustained. We may assume that, as soon as the
persecution began to relax, Eusebius succeeded Pamphilus in the charge
of the college and library. Perhaps he was ordained priest about this
time. By 315 he was already a bishop, for he was present in that
capacity at the dedication of a new basilica at Tyre, on which occasion
he delivered a discourse given in full in the last book of the Church
history.
Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria,
excommunicated Arius about the year 320. The
Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on
their side. He wrote to Alexander charging him with misrepresenting the
teaching of the
Arians and so giving them cause "to attack and misrepresent whatever
they please" (see below). A portion of this letter has been preserved in
the Acts of the second Council of Nicæa, where it was cited to prove
that Eusebius was a heretic. He also took part in a synod of Syrian
bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former
position, but on his side he was to obey his bishop and continually
entreat peace and communion with him (Soz., H. E., I, 15). According to
Duchesne (Hist. de l'Eglise, II, 132), Arius, like Origen before him,
found an asylum at Cæsarea. At the opening of the Council of Nicæa
Eusebius occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor, and
delivered the inaugural address which was "couched in a strain of
thanksgiving to
Almighty God on his, the emperor's behalf" (Vit. Const., III, 11;
Soz., H. E., I, 19). He evidently enjoyed great prestige and may not
unreasonably have expected to be able to steer the council through the
via media between the Scylla and Charybdis of "Yes" and "No". But
if he entertained such hopes they were soon disappointed. We have
already spoken of the profession of faith which he brought forward to
vindicate his own orthodoxy, or perhaps in the hope that the council
might adopt it. It was, in view of the actual state of the controversy,
a colourless, or what at the present day would be called a
comprehensive, formula. After some delay Eusebius subscribed to the
uncompromising creed drawn up by the council, making no secret, in the
letter which he wrote to his own Church, of the non-natural sense in
which he accepted it. Between 325 and 330 a heated controversy took
place between Eusebius and Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. Eustathius
accused Eusebius of tampering with the faith of Nicæa; the latter
retorted with the charge of Sabellianism. In 331 Eusebius was among the
bishops who, at a synod held in Antioch, deposed Eustathius. He was
offered and refused the vacant see. In 334 and 335 he took part in the
campaign against St. Athanasius at the synods held in Cæsarea and Tyre
respectively. From Tyre the assembly of bishops were summoned to
Jerusalem by Constantine, to assist at the dedication of the basilica he
had erected on the site of Calvary. After the dedication they restored
Arius and his followers to communion. From Jerusalem they were summoned
to Constantinople (336), where Marcellus was condemned. The foilowing
year Constantine died. Eusebius survived him long enough to write his
Life and two treatises against Marcellus, but by the summer of 341 he
was already dead, since it was his successor, Acacius, who assisted as
Bishop of Cæsarea at a synod held at Antioch in the summer of that year.
WRITINGS
We shall take Eusebius's writings in the order given in Harnack's "Altchrist.
Lit.", pp. 554 sqq.
A. Historical
(1) The lost Life of Pamphilus, often referred to by Eusebius, of which
only a single fragment, describing Pamphilus' liberality to poor
students, quoted by St. Jerome (c. Ruffin., I, ix), survives.
(2) A collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, used by the compiler of Wright's
Syriac Martyrology, also lost.
(3) On the Martyrs of Palestine. There are two distinct forms of this
work, both drawn up by Eusebius. The longer is only extant in a Syriac
version which was first edited and translated by Cureton in 1861. The
shorter form is found in most MSS. (not, however, in the best) of the
Church History, sometimes at the end of the last book, generally between
books VIII and IX, also in the middle of book VIII. The existence of the
same work in two different forms raises a number of curious literary
problems. There is, of course, the question of priority. Here, with two
notable exceptions, scholars seem to be agreed in favour of the longer
form. Then comes the question, why Eusebius abridged it and, finally,
how the abridgment found its way into the Church History. The shorter
form lacks some introductory remarks, referred to in c. xiii, which
defined the scope of the book. It also breaks off when the writer is
about to "record the palinode" of the persecutors. It seems probable
that part of the missing conclusion is extant in the form of an appendix
to the eighth book of the Church History found in several MSS. This
appendix contrasts the miserable fate of the persecutors with the good
fortune of Constantine and his father. From these data Lightfoot
concludes that what we now possess formed "part of a larger work in
which the sufferings of the Martyrs were set off against the deaths of
the persecutors". It must, however, be remembered that the missing parts
would not add much to the book. So far as the martyrs are concerned, it
is evidently complete, and the fate of the persecutors would not take
long in the telling. Still, the missing conclusion may explain why
Eusebius curtailed his account of the Martyrs. The book, in both forms,
was intended for popular reading. It was therefore desirable to keep
down the price of copies. If this was to be done, and new matter (i. e.
the fate of the persecutors) added, the old matter had to be somewhat
curtailed. In 1894, in the Theologische Literaturzeitung (p. 464)
Preuschen threw out the idea that the shorter form was merely a rough
draft not intended for publication. Bruno Violet, in his "Die
Palästinischen Martyrer" (Texte u. Untersuch., XIV, 4, 1896) followed up
this idea and pointed out that, whereas the longer form was constantly
used by the compilers of Martyrologies, Menologies, and the like, the
shorter form was never used. In a review of Violet (Theolog. Litz, 1897,
p. 300), Preuschen returns to his original idea, and further suggests
that the shorter form must have been joined to the Church History by
some copyist who had access to Eusebius's MSS. Harnack (Chronologie, 11,
115) holds to the priority of the longer form, but he thinks that the
shorter form was composed almost at the same time for readers of the
Church History.
(4) The Chronicle (see separate article,
EUSEBIUS, CHRONICLE
OF).
(5) The Church History. It would be difficult to overestimate the
obligation which posterity is under to Eusebius for this monumental
work. Living during the period of transition, when the old order was
changing and all connected with it was passing into oblivion, he came
forward at the critical moment with his immense stores of learning and
preserved priceless treasures of
Christian antiquity. This is the great merit of the Church History.
It is not a literary work which can be read with any pleasure for the
sake of its style. Eusebius's "diction", as Photius said, "is never
pleasant nor clear". Neither is it the work of a great thinker. But it
is a storehouse of information collected by an indefatigable student.
Still, great as was Eusebius's learning, it had its limitations. He is
provokingly ill-informed about the West. That he knows very little about
Tertullian or
St. Cyprian is due, no doubt, to his scant knowledge of Latin; but
in the case of a Greek writer, like Hippolytus, we can only suppose that
his works somehow failed to make their way to the libaries of the East.
Eusebius's good faith and sincerity has been amply vindicated by
Lightfoot. Gibbon's celebrated sneer, about a writer "who indirectly
confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and
that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of
religion", can be sufficiently met by referring to the passages (H. E.,
VIII, ii; Mart. Pal. c. 12) on which it is based. Eusebius does not
"indirectly confess", but openly avows, that he passes over certain
scandals, and he enumerates them and denounces them. "Nor again", to
quote Lightfoot, "can the special charges against his honour as a
narrator be sustained. There is no ground whatever for the charge that
Eusebius forged or interpolated the passage from
Josephus relating to our Lord quoted in H. E., I, 11, though
Heinchen is disposed to entertain the charge. Inasmuch as this passage
is contained in all our MSS., and there is sufficient evidence that
other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of
Josephus long before his time (see Orig., c. Cels., I, 47, Delarue's
note) no suspicion can justly attach to Eusebius himself. Another
interpolation in the Jewish historian, which he quotes elsewhere (11,
23), was certainly known to Origen (l. c.). Doubtless also the omission
of the owl in the account of
Herod Agrippa's death (H. E., 11, 10) was already in some texts of
Josephus (Ant., XIX, 8, 2). The manner in which Eusebius deals with
his numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a
sufficient vindication against this unjust charge" (L., p. 325).
The notices in the Church History bearing on the New Testament Canon are
so important that a word must be said about the rule followed by
Eusebius in what he recorded and what he left unrecorded. Speaking
generally, his principle seems to have been to quote testimonies for and
against those books only whose claims to a place in the Canon had been
disputed. In the case of undisputed books he gave any interesting
information concerning their composition which he had come across in his
reading. The subject was most carefully investigated by Lightfoot in an
article in "The Contemporary" (January, 1875, reprinted in "Essays on
Supernatural Religion"), entitled "The Silence of Eusebius". In regard
to the Gospel of St. John, Lightfoot concludes: "The silence of Eusebius
respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its
favour." For the episcopal lists in the Church History, see article on
the
Chronicle. The tenth book of the Church History records the defeat
of Licinius in 323, and must have been completed before the death and
disgrace of Crispus in 326, for it refers to him as Constantine's "most
pious son". The ninth book was completed between the defeat of Maxentius
in 312, and Constantine's first rupture with Licinius in 314.
(6) The Life of Constantine, in four books. This work has been most
unjustly blamed, from the time of Socrates downwards, because it is a
panegyric rather than a history. If ever there was a man under an
obligation to respect the maxim, De mortuis nil nisi bonum, this
man was Eusebius, writing the Life of Constantine within three years
after his death (337). This Life is especially valuable because of the
account it gives of the Council of Nicæa and the earlier phases of the
Arian controversy. It is well to remember that one of our chief
sources of information for the history of that council is a book written
to magnify Constantine.
B. Apologetic
(7) Against Hierocles. Hierocles, who, as governor in Bithynia and in
Egypt, was a cruel enemy of the
Christians during the persecution, before the persecution had
attacked them with the pen. There was nothing original about his work
except the use he made of Philostratus's Life of Apollonius of Tyana to
institute a comparison between the Lord and Apollonius in favour of the
latter. In his reply Eusebius confined himself to this one point.
(8) "Against Porphyry", a work in twenty-five books of which not a
fragment survives.
(9) The "Præparatio Evangelica", in fifteen books.
(10) The "Demonstratio Evangelica", in twenty books, of which the last
ten, with the exception of a fragment of the fifteenth, are lost. The
object of these two treatises, which should be regarded as two parts of
one comprehensive work, was to justify the
Christian in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks in
favour of that of the Hebrews, and then to justify him in not observing
the Jewish manner of life. The "Præparatio" is devoted to the first of
these objects. The following summary of its contents is taken from Mr.
Gifford's introduction to his translation of the "Præparatio": "The
first three books discuss the threefold system of Pagan Theology,
Mythical, Allegorical, and Political. The next three, IV-VI, give an
account of the chief oracles, of the worship of dæmons, and of the
various opinions of Greek Philosophers on the doctrines of Plato and
Free Will. Books VII- IX give reasons for preferring the religion of the
Hebrews founded chiefly on the testimony of various authors to the
excellency of their Scriptures and the truth of their history. In Books
X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older
theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the
supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses. In the last three books the
comparison of Moses with Plato is continued, and the mutual
contradictions of other Greek Philosophers, especially the Peripatetics
and Stoics, are exposed and criticized."
The "Præparatio" is a gigantic feat of erudition, and, according to
Harnack (Chronologie, II, p. 120), was, like many of Eusebius's other
works, actually composed during the stress of the persecution. It ranks,
with the Chronicle, second only to the Church History in importance,
because of its copious extracts from ancient authors whose works have
perished. The first book of the Demonstratio chiefly deals with the
temporary character of the Mosaic Law. In the second the prophecies
concerning the vocation of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews
are discussed. In the remaining eight the testimonies of the prophets
concerning Christ are treated of.
We now pass to three books, of which nothing is known save that they
were read by Photius, viz. (11), The "Præparatio Ecclesiastica", (12),
the "Demonstratio Ecclesiastica", and (13) Two Books of Objection and
Defence, of which, from Photius's account, there seem to have been two
separate editions.
(14) The "Theophania" or "Divine Manifestation". Except for a few
fragments of the original, this work is only extant in a Syriac version
dsicovered by Tattam, edited by Lee in 1842, and translated by the same
in 1843. It treats of the cosmic function of the Word, the nature of
man, the need of revelation, etc. The fourth and fifth books are
particularly remarkable as a kind of anticipation of modern books on
Christian evidences. A curious literary problem arises out of the
relations between the "Theophania" and the work "De Laudibus Constantini".
There are entire passages which are almost verbatim the same in both
works. Lightfoot decides in favour of the priority of the first-named
work. Gressel, who has edited the "Theophania" for the Berlin edition of
the Greek Fathers, takes the opposite view. He compares the parallel
passages and argues that they are improved in the "De Laudibus
Constantini".
(15) "On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients". This work is referred to
by Eusebius twice, in the "Præp. Ev.", VII, 8, and in the "Dem. Ev.",
VII, 8; and also (Lightfoot and Harnack think) by St. Basil ("De Spir.
Sanct.", xxix), where he says, "I draw attention to his [Eusebius's]
words in discussing the difficulties started in connexion with ancient
polygamy." Arguing from St. Basil's words, Lightfoot thinks that in this
treatise Eusebius dealt with the difficulty presented by the Patriarchs
possessing more than one wife. But he overlooked the reference in the
"Dem. Ev.", from which it would appear that the difficulty dealt with
was, perhaps, a more general one, viz., the contrast presented by the
desire of the Patriarchs for a numerous offspring and the honour in
which continence was held by
Christians.
C. Exegetical
(16) Eusebius narrates, in his Life of Constantine (IV, 36, 37), how he
was commissioned by the emperor to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the
Bible for use in the Churches of Constantinople. Some scholars have
supposed that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of these copies. Lightfoot
rejects this view chiefly on the ground that "the Text of the codex in
many respects differs too widely from the readings found in Eusebius".
(17) Sections and Canons. Eusebius drew up ten canons, the first
containing a list of passages common to all four Evangelists; the
second, those common to the first three and so on. He also divided the
Gospels into sections numbered continuously. A number, against a
section, referred the reader to the particular canon where he could find
the parallel sections or passages.
(18) The labours of Pamphilus and Eusebius in editing the Septuagint
have already been spoken of. They "believed (as did St. Jerome nearly a
century afterwards) that Origen had succeeded in restoring the old Greek
version to its primitive purity". The result was a "mischievous mixture
of the Alexandrian version with the versions of Aquila and Theodotion" (Swete,
"Introd. to O. T. in Greek", pp. 77, 78). For the labours of the two
friends on the text of the N. T. the reader may be referred to Rousset,
"Textcritische Studien zum N. T.", c. ii. Whether as in the case of the
Old Testament, they worked on any definite critical principles is not
known.
(19) (a) Interpretation of the ethnological terms in the Hebrew
Scriptures; (b) Chronography of Ancient Judaea with the Inheritances of
the Ten Tribes; (c) A plan of Jerusalem and the Temple; (d) on the Names
of Places in the Holy Scriptures. These four works were written at the
request of Eusebius's friend Paulinus. Only the fourth is extant. It is
known as the "Topics," or the "Onomasticon".
(20) On the nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets. This work gives a
short biography of each Prophet and an account of his prophecies.
(21) Commentary on the Psalms. There are many gaps in the MSS. of this
work, and they end in the 118th Psalm. The missing portions are in part
supplied by extracts from the Catenae. An allusion to the discovery of
the Holy Sepulchre fixes the date at about 330. Lightfoot speaks very
highly of this commentary.
(22) Commentary on Isaiah, written after the persecution.
(23 to 28) Commentaries on other books of Holy Scripture, of some of
which what may be extracts are preserved.
(29) Commentary on St. Luke, of which what seem to be extracts are
preserved.
(30) Commentary on I Cor., the existence of which seems to be implied by
St. Jerome (Ep. xlix).
(31) Commentary on Hebrews. A passage that seems to belong to such a
commentary was discovered and published by Mai.
(32) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels, in two parts. An epitome, very
probably from the hand of Eusebius, of this work was discovered and
published by Mai in 1825. Extracts from the original are preserved. Of
the two parts, the first, dedicated to a certain Stephen, discusses
questions respecting the genealogies of Christ; the second, dedicated to
one Marinus, questions concerning the
Resurrection. The Discrepancies were largely borrowed from by St.
Jerome and St. Ambrose, and have thus indirectly exercised a
considerable influence on Biblical studies.
(33) General Elementary Introduction, consisting of ten books, of which
VI-IX are extant under the title of "Prophetical Extracts". These were
written during the persecution. There are also a few fragments of the
remaining books. "This work seems to have been a general introduction to
theology, and its contents were very miscellaneous as the extant remains
show" (L., p. 339).
D. Dogmatic
(34) The Apology for Origen. This work has already been mentioned in
connexion with Pamphilus. It consisted of six books, the last of which
was added by Eusebius. Only the first book is extant, in a translation
by Rufinus.
(35) "Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra", and (36) "On the Theology of
the Church", a refutation of Marcellus. In two articles in the "Zeitschrift
für die Neutest. Wissenschaft" (vol. IV, pp. 330 sqq. and vol. VI, pp.
250 sqq.), written in English, Prof. Conybeare has maintained that our
Eusebius could not have been the author of the two treatises against
Marcellus. His arguments are rejected by Prof. Klostermann, in his
introduction to these two works published in 1905 for the Berlin edition
of the Greek Fathers. The "Contra Marcellum" was written after 336 to
justify the action of the sylnod held at Constantinople when Marcellus
was deposed; the "Theology" a year or two later.
(37) "On the Paschal Festival" (a mystical interpretation). This work
was addressed to Constantine (Vit. Const., IV, 35, 3l6). A long fragment
of it was discovered by Mai.
(38) A treatise against the Manichæans is perhaps implied by Epiphanius
(Hær., lxvi, 21).
E. Orations and Sermons
(39) At the Dedication of the Church in Tyre (see above).
(40) At the Vicennalia of Constantine. This seems to have been the
opening address delivered at the Council of Nicæa. It is not extant.
(41) On the Sepulchre of the Saviour, A.
D. 325 (Vit. Const., IV, 33) not extant.
(42) At the Tricennalia of Constantine. This work is generally known as
the "De Laudibus Constantini". The second part (11-18) seems to have
been a separate oration joined on to the Tricennalia.
(43) "In Praise of the Martyrs". This oration is preserved in the same
MS. as the "Theophania" and "Martyrs of Palestine". It was published and
translated in the "Journal of Sacred Literature" by Mr. H. B. Cowper
(New Series, V, pp. 403 sqq., and ibid. VI, pp. 129 sqq.).
(44) On the Failure of Rain, not extant.
F. Letters
The history of the preservation of the three letters, (45) to Alexander
of Alexandria, (46) to Euphrasion, or Euphration, (47) to the Empress
Constantia, is sufficiently curious. Constantia asked Eusebius to send
her a certain likeness of Christ of which she had heard; his refusal was
couched in terms which centuries afterwards were appealed to by the
Iconoclasts. A portion of this letter was read at the Second Council
of Nicæa, and against it were set portions from the letters to Alexander
and Euphrasion to prove that Eusebius "was delivered up to a reprobate
sense, and of one mind and opinion with those who followed the
Arian superstition" (Labbe, "Conc.", VIII, 1143-1147; Mansi,
"Conc.", XIII, 313-317). Besides the passage quoted in the council,
other parts of the letter to Constantia are extant.
(48) To
the Church of Cæsarea after the Council of Nicæa. This letter has
already been described.
Culled from
CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA
