Prolegomena Part 2

Chapter II

The Writings of Eusebius.

S:1. Eusebius as a Writer

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Canons and Sections have never yet been superseded for their particular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

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

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

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

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

S:2. Catalogue of his Works.

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

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

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

I. Historical Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Apologetic Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Polemic Works.

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Dogmatic Works.

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

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

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

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

V. Critical and Exegetical Works.

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

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

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

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

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





















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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. Biblical Dictionaries.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Orations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

VIII. Epistles.

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

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

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

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

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

IX. Spurious or Doubtful Works.

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

De fide adv. Sabellium, libri duo.

De Resurrectione, libri duo.

De Incorporali et invisibili Deo.

De Incorporali.

De Incorporali Anima.

De Spiritali Cogitatu hominis.

De eo quod Deus Pater incorporalis est, libri duo.

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

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

De operibus bonis et malis.

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

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

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

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

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

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