c.
May 260 A.D. Eusebius, Church
Historian, Born in Caesarea, Palestine
Bacchus,
Francis Joseph. "Eusebius of Cæsarea." The Catholic Encyclopedia.
Vol. 5. New York: Robert Appleton Company, 1909. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/05617b.htm. Accessed Apr 26, 2014.
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'Église", 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 creeds
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. — Church
History 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 (Church
History 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 (Church
History III.28). He calls Manes, whom he places (Church
History 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 (Church
History 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 Scripture. 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 manuscripts 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 1 Samuel 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 (Church
History VII.7-9). 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 (Sozomen, Church
History I.15). According to Duchesne (Hist. de l'Église, 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; Sozomen, Church
History 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 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 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.
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 manuscripts (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 manuscripts 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 manuscripts 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.
(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 (Church
History VIII.2; 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 Church
History I.11, though Heinchen is disposed to entertain the charge.
Inasmuch as this passage is contained in all our manuscripts, 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 (Church
History II.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.
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
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 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 (On the Holy Spirit 29), 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.
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 New Testament 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
Scripture.
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 manuscripts of this work, and they
end in the 118th Psalm. The missing portions are in part supplied by extracts
from the Catenæ. An allusion to the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre fixes the
date at about 330. Lightfoot speaks very highly of this commentary.
(23
to 28) Commentaries on other books of Holy Scripture, of some of which what
may be extracts are preserved.
(30)
Commentary on First
Corinthians,
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).
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 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, 316). A long fragment
of it was discovered by Mai.
(38)
A treatise against the Manichæans is perhaps implied by Epiphanius (Hær., lxvi,
21).
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 manuscript 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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment