Eusebius of Caesarea
Bishop of Caesarea 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 Nicaea. 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 December 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 Caesarea 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 the priesthood in the city of Caesarea 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 proffered 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 1894 (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 Caesarea, 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 creeds were daughters of the early Roman creed, and this latter did not reach the East till about A.D. 272] 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 Caesarean creed at a time when, in the Kattenbusch-Harnack hypothesis, the parent of that creed had not yet reached Antioch—much less Caesarea 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’ hemas.—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’ hemas) 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 times” (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 Caesarea. 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 Caesarea. Pamphilus came from Phoenicia, but at the time we are considering resided at Caesarea, 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. (I) 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: ‚ÄòIt 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 Caesarea 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, Aedesius, 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 Defense 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 “Praep. Evang.”, has suggested another explanation on the authority of an ancient scholion emanating from Caesarea 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., Haer., 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 Nicaea, 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 Caesarea. At the opening of the Council of Nicaea 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 colorless, 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 Nicaea; 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 Caesarea 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 following 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 Caesarea 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.—(I) 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 favor 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 Eusbius 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 Palastinischen 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 libraries 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 honor 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 Heinichen 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 (I. 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 favor.” 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 compiled 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 Nicaea 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 our Lord and Apollonius in favor 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 “Praeparatio 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 favor of that of the Hebrews, and then to justify him in not observing the Jewish manner of life. The “Praeparatio” 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 “Praeparatio”: “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 demons, and of the various opinions of Greek Philosophers on the doctrines of Fate 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 “Praeparatio” 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 “Praeparatio Ecclesiastica”, (12) the “Demonstratio Ecclesiastica”, and (13) Two Books of Objection and Defense, 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 discovered 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 favor 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 “Praep. 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 connection 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 honor 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 labors 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 labors of the two friends on the text of the N. T. the reader may be referred to Bousset, “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) Chorography 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 connection 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 synod 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, 36). A long fragment of it was discovered by Mai.—(38) A treatise against the Manichans is perhaps implied by Epiphanius (Haer., 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 Nicaea. It is not extant.—(41) On the Sepulchre of the Savior, A.D. 325 (Vit. Const., IV, 33) not extant.—(42) At the Tricennalia of Constantine. This work is generally known as the “De Laudibus Constantin”. 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 Niceaa, 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 Caesarea after the Council of Nicaea. This letter has already been described.
F. J. BACCHUS