Home

Encyclopedia

Summa

Fathers

Library

Bible

Shop

Home >
Catholic
Encyclopedia > E > Eusebius of Cæsarea

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

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." ¾ All references to Lightfoot, unless
otherwise stated, are to this article. ¾ 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 ¼ 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 ¾ 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. ¾ 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 Ph?nicia, 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:¾

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 ¾ "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 ¾ 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 ¼ 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
¾ it was hardly a question ¾ 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 ¾ 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.

F.J. BACCHUS
Transcribed by WGKofron

Dedicated to Rev. David J. Collins, S.J.

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume
V
Copyright © 1909 by Robert Appleton Company
Online Edition
Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight
Nihil Obstat, May 1, 1909. Remy
Lafort, Censor
Imprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New
York

If an ad appears here that contradicts Catholic
teachings, please click here to notify the
webmaster.

Copyright © 2003 by K. Knight. All rights reserved. Updated 15
September 2003.

Praise Jesus Christ in His Angels and in His Saints.
New Advent is dedicated to the Immaculate Heart of
Mary.