I. The Life and Writings of Eusebius

No contemporary biography οf Εusebius is now
extant, for though one was published by Acacius, his
successor as bishop of Caesarea, it has been lost, and
we are dependent on a few vague statements in later
writers and on the eridence of his extant writings.

Ηe was probably born about the year 260. This
date is fixed by (1) the faet that he speaks of Dionysius
of Alexandria as having been alive in his time:
Dionysius was bishop of Αlexandria from about 247
to 265. (2) Ηe speaks of Ρaul οf samosata as a
contemporary: Ρaul was deposed in 270. (3) Ηe
speaks of Manes as belonging “ to yesterday and οur
times”: Manes lived during the episcopate of Felix
at Rome in 270—274. (4) After speaking of
of Alexandria, who became bishop in 247, and before
speaking of Dionysius of Rome (A.D. 259), he seems
draw a chronological line, stating that he now proposes
to relate the history of his οwn generation.1
Ηis parentage and the place of his birth are unknown.
It is true that Αrius in writing to Εusebius
of Νicomedia spoke οf him as the brother of the latter,
but it is probable that this meant no more than
“brother bishop.” Ηe was sometimes referred
 

 
as “ the Palestinian,” but this again was
merely to distinguish him from the other Εusebius,
and alluded to his Palestinian bishopric. His most
usual designation was “Εusebius οf Pamphilus.”
This doubtless means some elose relationship, and has
been interpreted as son, nephew, friend, οr slave of
Pamphilus. Αll these are possible, but none certain,
and in the absence of evidence a decision between
them connot be made.1 Pamphilus was a native of
Phoenicia who had studied in Alexandria and settled
in Caesarea. Ηe here collected a large library, including
some of the works of Origen and the original οf
the Hexapla.2 This library and the similar one made
by Bishop Alexander at Jerusalem were the main
sources from which Eusebius derived the material for
his books.

It is unknown at what time he was ordained deacon
or priest, and it has been doubted whethcr he was in
clerical orders at all until his election to the see οf
Caesarea. Ηe was imprisoned during the persecution
at Caesarea under the governor Firmilianus in
the year 309 but was neither tortured nor executed.
Many years afterwards, at the Council οf Tyre
(a. d. 835), he was accused by Potammon, the bishop
of Heraclea, of having betrayed the faith during
the persecution and having thus escaped. But no
evidence appears to have been produced that this was
so, and in the eontroversies of that ume neithcr side
was unduly reluctant to blacken the character of
their opponents; had there been any eridence it
would surely have been adduced.
Αfter the end οf the persecution in 313 Eusebius
 

 
was made bishop of caesarea, but the exact date is
doubtful; it must, however, have been before 315,
when as bishop οf Caesarea he attended the consecration
of the church in Tyre. In 325 he was present
at the Council of Nicaea, where he held a very
prominent place οn the right hand of the Εmperor
Constantine. It has sometimes been stated that he
was actually the president οf the Council, but this
cannot be proved and is even improbable. Both
before and after this time he appears to have been
the chief theological adviser of Constantine. His
general attitude during and after the Council was
that οf the moderate man. Ηe was not in agreement
with the party of Alexander,1 and appears to have
done his best to induce the Council to adopt a less
drastic creed. On the whole he probably was more
in agreement with Arius and with his namesake,
Εusebius of Kicomeffia, than with the opposite party,
but his policy and that of the Emperor was to seek a
formula of comprehension, while Alexander on the
οne hand and Αrius on the other desired formulae
which would exclude their opponents. In the end
he was obliged to rield to the preSsure of numbers
and appears to have voted with the majority in the
final decision; but he was never really convinced,
and for the rest of his life was an opponent οf the
Athanasian party, and a firm supporter of all attempts
to evict its leaders and to modify the ereed so as to
leave room for more difference of opinion οn metaphysical
questions.

Six years after the Council of Nicaea he was
present at the council of Antioch (a. d. 331), which
 

 
deposed Eustathius, one of the leaders of the anti-
Arian party. On this occasion he was offered the
bishopric of Antioch, but refused it, nominally at
least, because he was unwilling to transgress the
ecclesiastical rule that a bishop must not leave one
see for another. Three years later later (a. d. a
proposal was made to depose Αthanasius. Αn
attempt was apparently made to hold a eouncil for
this purpose at Caesarea, but it was unsuccessful, and
the synod was not actually held till a year later at
Tyre (a. d. 835). At this meeting, which Eusebius
attended, Athanasius was condemned on evidenee
which though apparently convincing was, to say
the least of it, mostly fraudulent. Athanasius was
accused of having cut off the hand of a certain bishop.
The hand was actually produeed as evidence, but not
the bishop, whom Athanasius afterwards discovered
and convicted οf possessing both hands.

In the same year Eusebius was the leading figure
at the synod of Jerusalem during which was held the
conseeration of the new church. This synod was
distinctly Arian in tendeney as indeed, were most of
the councils of the eastern clergy. Ιt was decided
to re-admit Arius, and action was begun against
Marcellus of Ancyra.1 In pursuance of this policy a
little later during the same year Εusebius attended
a Synod at Constantinople. Arius died on the eve
of his restoration, but Μarcellus was condemned, and
during the proceedings Eusebius was the chosen
 

 
orator at the famous “tricennalia,” the
the thirtieth year of Constantine's reign.

In 337 Constantine died and Εusebius did not long
survive him. The day of his death is known with
tolerable certainty, but not the year, for the Syriac
martyrology of the fourth century, which probably
represents the old calendar of Nicomedia, merely
says that Εusebius died on May the 30th. Since
Socrates, H. Ε. ii. 4, mentions his death in connexion
with events which took place in 389 and 340, and
since in 341, at the Synod of Antioch, Αcacius, the
successor of Εusebius, was present as bishop οf
Caesarea, the death of Eusebius must have taken
Ρlace on May the 30th in 339 or 340. Α definite
choice between these years is impossible, but, as
Lightfoot points out, the general impression made by
the statements in Socrates and Sozomen is that
death of Εusebius took place before that of the
younger Constantine and the second exile of Athansius.
These events were probably earlier in 340 than
May the 30th, so that probability slighty favours
339 rather than 340 as the year οf his death.1

Important though his ecclesiastical and political
career undoubtedly was, his literary achievements
are his chief claim to fame. Once more, there is
not extant any complete list of his writings. Jerome,
Nicephorus Callistus, and Ebed Jesu, the Syriac
writer, have given partial lists, and scattered though
the writings of Ρhotius are referenees to other works.
These are some help, but Εusebius himself is οur
chief source of information.

Ηe began to write in the last years οf the third
century or at the beginning οf the fourth. To the
 

 
earliest period probably belong two books of controversy
with heathen writers. One, Adversus Hieroclem,
was an answer to the Philalethes of Hierocles,
who had compared Christ and Apollonius οf Tyana.
The work of Hierocles is unfortunately lost, but
Eusebius's book is extant. It is written in a style
rather markedly different from his later works, and
he never quotes it. There is, however, scarcely
sufficient reason for doubting its authenticity. It
was probably a work of his youth. The other book
of the same kind was an answer to Porphyry, a
heathen controversialist living in Caesarea, who had
attacked Origen and other Christians. The text of
this book is wholly lost, but a fragment which may
belong to it has been published by Ε. von der Goltz
in Texte und Untersuchungen, xvii. 4. pp. 41 ff. It is
also probable that to the same early period should be
ascribed a collection of the lives of the early martyrs.
This collection, which would be of inestimable value,
has unfortunately been lost, but it was used by the
old syriac martyrology and other traces of it have
been found in later collections οf the lives of saints.
finally, it is generally thought that a lost work οf his,
Περὶ τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν ἀνδρῶν πολυπαιδίας, quoted
by Basil the Great, De Spiritu Sancto, cap. 29, and
mentioned in Eusebius, Praeparatio, vii. 8. 29 and
Demonstratio, i. 9. 20, may belong to this period.

The next period of his life is the ten years of the
Diocletian persecution, 303—313. During this
and possibly even before it, Εusebius was busy with
a great project of connected works dealing with
the history and philosophy οf Christianity. Though
they have not all been preserved the greater part of
these books remain and are the most valuable extant

 
monument of Christianity as it was immediately
before the Council of Nicaea. Ρart of his great
claim to distinction is that when writing philosophy
he never neglects history, οr philosophy when
writing history.

The position of Eusebius is that the Logos existed
from the beginning with God the Father. As might
be expected from one who wrote earher than the
Couneil of Nicaea and was afterwards suspected of a
tendency to Arianism, he expresses himself with
some ambiguity as to whether the Son, or Logos, was
created by the Father. The Father was the creator
of the universe and all creation within it the work of
the Logos. Μan, however, was made by the Father,
though the Logos shared in the plan of his creation.
Αfter the creation it was the Logos who appeared
to the righteous; and Εusebius thus explains the
visions of Abraham, Μoses, Jaeob, and Joshua, as
well as all referenees to Wisdom in the sapiential
bookS. Ηe explains that this doctrine of the Logos
would have been promulgated long ago, had not men
been too wicked to understand it, and that it was
actually, though obscurely, contained in the Οld
Testament, as is shown by passages in the Οld Testamenat
which should be regarded as foretelling even
the names of Jesus and of Christ. Jesus, according
to him, was the incarnate Logos, who came to
announee himself and to point out to men the duty
of reverencing and worshipping him. Finally, he
maintains that the teaching of Christianity was
neither new nor Strange. What was new was the
Church, the race of Christians. Their corporate
existence, their general piety, and their inerearing
influence were indeed new, but their teaching was

 
not. It had been followed centuries before them by
Abraham and Moses and the later prophets; and the
religion of the patriarchs was identical with that of
the Christians. All history was a contest between
God, acting through Patriarchs, Prophets, and the
Church, on the one hand, and the Devil, instigating
Jews, Persecutors, and Heretics, on the other. It is
a contest in which the Devil always gets the worst of
it in the long run, but the righteous suffer considerably
in the process; and part of the plan of Eusebius
is to reveal the machinations of the Evil One and his
followers, and to show the catastrophes which befell
Persecutors, Jews, and Heretics.

The student of church history will have little
difficulty in recognizing that this teaching is in the
direct line of Justin Martyr, Aristides, Clement of
Alexandria, and Origen. In some ways he was the
last and the greatest of the. Apologists, for after his
time, when the Church was accepted within the
Empire, there was no reason for anyone to write
quite the same argumentative justification of
Christian religion as was incumbent upon him. It
would be interesting if we could know how far his
works, incomparably more logical than those of his
predecessors, converted the educated classes in the
Empire. Origen, no doubt, and Clement of
Alexandria were his superiors as philosophers, but
neither of them had the same grasp of history and
of historical presentation.

To attempt to arrange in chronological order the
books which he wrote during this period is misleading.
He was doubtless constantly working on the material
used in them all, and although it is possible to make
a few statements about their relative chronology,

 
this applies only to the dates at which they were
begun οr at which they were finally put into
writing.

Αt the head οf the series must be placed the
Chronicon. Eusebius perceived that the foundation
of history is accurate chronology and for this purpose,
using no doubt as the basis of his work the earlier
efforts of Julius Africanus and others, and partly at
least controverting their position, he produced a
work which is now extant in the form οf elaborate
tables arranged in parallel columns illustrating the
whole history of the world year by year. These
form the Χρονικοὶ κανόνες, which have been preserved
in an Armenian translation and in the Latin version
of Jerome. Whether this was the original form of
Eusebius's οwn work is οpen to question. Ρossibly
it is a later, more precise but less trustworthy
recension.1 To these tables was prefixed a Χρονογραφία,
or explanation and introduction, which has
unfortunately been lost. From references in
Eclogae i. 1 and i. 8, it would appear that this
work was produced before 303, but according to
Jerome Εusebius afterwards re-edited it, carrying
it down to 325.

During the years οf persecution which followed he
began two great connected works entitled the
Praeparatio Euangelica and the Demonstratio Euangelica,
dedicated to Theodotus, bishop οf Laodieaea.
The beginning of these bookss can be dated as after
303 and before 313, for both Praeparatio, xii. 10. 7
and Demonstratio, iii. 5. 7 refer to the persecution as
 

 
still raging. Nevertheless, the Demonstration was not
finished until after the Ρeace, to which a reference is
made in Demonstratio, v. 3. 11.

The Praeparatio is fully extant, but or the Demonstratio,
which originally contalned twenty books, only
the first ten are preserved. Taken together they
constitute a statement of the positive and negative
cases for Christianity as Eusebius conceived them.
The Praeparatio is especially concerned with the treatment
of heathenism which it describes and refutes.
The Demonstratio shows how the prophets foretold
Christianity, and how the religion of the Chrirtians
was not new but was identieal With that Which had
been followed by the patriarchs and saints οf Old
Testament days even before the time of Moses. It
is thus ineidentally an

Closely connected with these two books is a third
called Ἡ καθόλου στοιχειώδης εἰσαγωγή, or General
Elementary Introduction, in ten books, of which four
are extant in the form of the Προφητικαὶ ἐκλογαί,
commonly quoted as the Eclogae, or Prophetic
Extracts. Ιt is not quite clear what was the relation
of this book to the Εἰσαγωγή, but apparently it was
an extract from the larger work. Ιt must have been
begun berore 313, as it contains a reference to the
persecution as still continuing (Ecl. i. 8). Ιt presents
another version of the same argument from prophecy
as is contained in the Demonstratio, and lists οf
passages are given from the Old Testament, which
are held to refer to the person and work of Christ.
The first book of the Eclogae is devoted to the historical
books of the Οld Testanlent, the seeond to the
Psalms, the third to the remaining poetical books

 
and the other prophets, the fourth to Isaiah. The
other books of the Εἰσαγωγή are lost.

If Photius can be trusted, Eusebius also wrote,
possibly at this time, two other books of a similar
nature, the Praeparatio Ecclesiastica, and the Demonstratio
Ecclesiastica. Both of these have entirely
perished, but it is supposed that they dealt with the
church in the same way as the Praeparatio Evangelica
and Demonstratio Evangelica dealt with the coming
of Christ. Lightfoot thinks that there is an allusion
to the Demonstratio Ecclesiastica in the Praeparatio
Evangelica, i. 3. 11, where Eusebius says that he had
gathered together in a speeial work the sayings of
Christ relative to the foundation of his church and
had compared them with the events. Lightfoot
also thinks that it is possible that Book IV. of the
Theophania may have been adapted from the Demonstratio
Ecclessiastica, just as other parts οf the Theophania
(for instance Book V.) are adapted from the
Demonstratio Evangelica.

Before Eusebius had finished writing the Demonstratio
Evangelica the persecution was ended (or at
least seemed to be ended) by the Edict of Toleration
in 311, and Εusebius seems to have broken off from
his dogmatic writings to write a history of the church
on the basis of the facts which he had already
collected and in Ρart published in the Chronicon.

This Church History, tranriated in the present
volumes, passed during the life of Εusebius himself
through several Stages which may not unfairiy be
called editions.

1. The first edition consisted of Books I.-VIII. Ιt
was Ρlanned in 311, for in the preface to the first

 
book Εusebius says that he will describe “the
martyrdoms of οur own time and the gracious and
favouring help of our Saviour in them all”
in Book viii. 16. 1 he says that the Edict of Tolerance
in 311 was “the gracious and favouring interposition
of God.” The similarity of phrase suggests that
same event—the Εdict of Toleranee—is intended in
both passages. This conclusion may be supported
by small difference of plan which show that the
minth book was not part of the original scheme,
and that the οriginal tert of the eighth book
has been somewhat modified in the later
editions, to which all the extant MSS. belong. The
details can best be found in Schwartz's introduction,
page Ivi.

2. The second effition added Book IX., which was
necessary because the persecution, which seemed to
have ceased in 311, was revived by Maximin, and the
defeat of Maximin by Licinius appeared the really
decisive moment. This second edition was probably
produced in 315

3. The third edition added the tenth book in order
to close the story with the dedication of the basilica
at Tyre. Εusebius says that he did this at the
request of Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, “ adding at this
time the tenth book to those that were already completed
of the Ecclesiastical History” (H. E. x. 1. 2).
Schwartz thinks that he also moved a collection of
documents from their original position in Book IX.
to the end of Book X., and added a paragraph to the
eighth book on the death of the four emperors.
This edition would belong to the year 317.

4. The fourth edition came after the fall of Licinius
in 323, and consisted in the main οf the removal of

 
passages inconsistent with the Damnatio Memoriae of
Licinius. The evidence for this last edition is in the
main textual. The group οf manuscripts ATER
contain a number of passages omitted in BDM, and a
large proportion οf them seem to be connected with
Licinius. It is thought that though all the existing
manuscripts represent the fourth edition, from which
these passages had been omitted in accordance with
the Mamnatio Memoriae οf Licinius, the group ΑTΕR
had been corrected from a copy of the third edition,
which, of course, contained these passages.

This theory of four editions οf the Ecclesiastical
History is taken from Ε. Schwartz's Prolegomena,
pp. xlvii ff. which should be carefully studied, as
they supersede all earlier investigations. It should
be noted that the evidence for the 3rd and 4th
editions is textual, for the 2nd and 3rd internal and
οgical.

Α rival theory has been propounded by Η. J.
Lawlor in his Eusebiana, pp. 243 ff. Ηe thinks that
Εusebius had begun to write his Church Ηistory
somewhat earlier than the date assigned by Schwartz,
and in this agrees with the view stated by Ηarnack
in his Chronologie, ii. pp. 111 ff. The theory has
the advantage that it gives Εusebius rather more
time for completing so large a book; and it neccessitates
the view, by no means improbable in itself,
that he wrote the Introduction in Book I. after he had
finished the narrative properly so called. Ηe had,
according to Lawlor, nearly completed the Seventh
Book οf the History, which brought the story down to
his own time, when suddenly the Edict of Toleration
was issued by Galerius and his colleagues. This
event, which appeared to have ushered in a period of

 
peace to the church after a most cruel persecution,
was seized upon by him as the natural end οf his
story. Ηe therefore wrote a sketch of the history of
the persecution as the eighth and hst book οf his
work, and published the whole. Α little later he
added an abridged from οf his Palestinian Martyrs,
which he had written in the interval as a supplement
to the eighth book, and this addition, according to
Lawlor, may be regarded as a second edition οf the
Church History. But the persecution was resumed,
and when the Εdict οf Milan οnce more re-established
toleratio, Εusebius produced a third edition of the
Historia Ecclesiastica, revising Book VIII., making
a few changes in Book VII. and in the Palestinian
Martyrs, and adding Book IX., thus bringing the
whole to an end with the text οf the letter of Licinius
dated June the 13th, 313. The date of this edition
would therefore be soon after the end οf 313. Α
fourth edition was produced eleven years later, adding
the tenth Book, and the whole work in its present
form was finished in 324 or a little later.

The weakest spot in this theory seems to be that it
attaches too little weight to the statement of Eusebius
that he added the tenth book in order to please
the bishop of Tyre, which certainly suggests an
earlier date than 323, inasmuch as the church at
Tyre was dedicated in 317. But Lawlor's suggestion
that there was never more than one edition of Book
X. is important for textual reasons. It would on the
whole tend to give greater value to the ΑTΕR group
and rather less to the BDM group, which Schwartz
on the whole prefers. The opinion οf the presen
editor inclines somewhat to Schwartz's interpretation
of the phenomena, but the suggestion that the first

 
edition of the Historia Ecclesiastica was begun rather
earlier than Schwartz suggests has many advantages.

Ιt is probable that the Chronicon, the Historia
Ecclesiastica, the Praeparatio Evangelica, the Demonstratio
Evangelica, the Eclogae Propheticae, and
possibly the Demonstratio and Praeparatio Ecclesiastica,
comprise the whole οf the original plan of
Εusebius. But the exigencies of events which
forced him somewhat to change the plan of the
Historia Ecclesiastica also led to his writing some
subsidiary books during this period.

The most important of these is the Palestinian
Martyrs, which has, like the Historia Ecclesiastica, a
complicated textual history. Ιt is known in two
forms, the longer found only in Syriac, though
undoubtedly based On a lost Greek original, and the
shorter preserved in the group ATER of the manuscripts
of the Historia Ecclesiastica, and inserted
immediately after Book VIII. The relation of these
two forms to each other and to the Historia Ecclesiastica
affords a problem which will probably never
be solved. Lightfoot and Lawlor believe that the
longer form is the earlier; Schwartz thinks that the
shorter is Eusebius's original draft, but that he
lengthened it himself. All agree that it is extremely
probable that both forms are due to Eusebius himself.
The relation οf the shorter form to the Historia
Ecclesiastica depends somewhat on the view taken οf
the textual history of the Historia. On Schwartz's
view of the manuscript evidence it seems almost
certain that the Palestinian Martyrs was omitted from
the last edition of the Historia Ecclesiastica, but that
it probably belonged to the third which influenced
the group of manuscripts ATER. Υet it is scarcely

 
probable that it was not inserted before the third
edition. Ιts position between the eighth and the
ninth books suggests that it was added by Εusebius to
the first edition which ended with Book VIII., and
this addition constituted lawlor's “second adition.’’
But there can be, from the nature of the case, no
certainty οn this point. Αll that is clear is that the
book has every claim of internal evidence to be
regarded as a true work of Eusebius, and that when
the recension ΑTΕR was made the scribe had access
to another manuscript, not that which he was actually
copying, which contained its text after the end of
Book VIII. What that manuscript was must remain
uncertain, as there is no evidence whatever on the
subject. Similarly, it is not likely that complete
certainty will ever be attained as to the relation
between the two forms of the text; the evidence
is too conflicting.

With regard to the whole complicated series οf
problems afforded by the composition and text οf
the Historia Ecclesiastica and the Palestinian Martyrs,
it may be said that the wisest method for a student
to pursue is to begin by reading the essay οf Lightfoot
in the Dictionary of Christian Biography, supplementing
it by Ηarnack’s treatment in his Altchristliche
Literatur and in his Chronologie, and then, and
not till then, to go οn to the more detailed, more
thorough, but far more difficult books of Schwartz and
Lawlor, both of which are quite indispensable to a
proper knowledge οf the subject.

During the last years of the persecution, Εusebius
collaborated with Ρamphilus in writing a Defence of
Origen. when Ρamphilus was martyred he finished

 
the work by himself, and also wrote the Life of
Pamphilus. Both books are unfortunately lost. Ηe
also wrote, in two volumes, a work called by Jerome
the De evangeliorum diaphonia, but in the Greek
entitled the Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις εἰς τὴν γενεαλογίαν
τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν πρὸς Στέφανον and the Ζητήματα
καὶ λύσεις εἰς τὴν ἀνάστασιν τοῦ Σωτῆρος πρὸς Μαρῖνον.
These are οnly extant in the form of an epitome, but
large fragments of the original have been found.
It is possible, but quite uncertam; that there may
be some eonnexion between this book and the
system of “Canons’’ which Εusebius invented to
facilitate the comparative study of the Gospels.
These canons divide the paragraphs of the Gospels,
quoted by the numbers given by Ammonius,1 into ten
groups, according as the material in them is found in
all four Gospels, in only one, οr in any of the possible
combinations of two or three Gospels. Εusebius
published this apparatus with an explanation in a
“letter to Carpianus,” of whom nothing
The earliest manuscript of the New Testament
which contains this system is the Codex Sinaiticus
which may have been written in Caesarea during the
life οf Εusebius, but more probably is a little later
and came from Alexandria.

Αfter Νicaea Εusebius scarcely produced so
many books as he did in the time of the persecution
and the days immediately succeeding it. This, no
doubt, was due to his elevation to the bishoprie of
Caesarea. Ηe seems to have busied himself with
exegetical writing, and there are large fragments
 

 
extant of a commentary on the Psalms, another
Luke, another οn Isaiah, and perhaps another
1 Corinthians, which probably belong to this peri
but none are fully extant and their further recov
depends in the main on the study οf catenae.1

Ηe also produced four connected works deali
with the geography of the Bible. These comprise
translation into Greek of foreign words found in th
Bible, a description οf ancient Judaea, a plan
Jerusalem and the temple, and a treatise οn
names of the places mentioned in the Bible.
first three have been lost, but the last was transla
by Jerome and is still extant. According to him i
was written after the Church History, and fr
internal evidence it appears to have been publish
before the death οf Paulinus of Tyre in 328. It i
usually quoted as the τοπικά or sometimes as
Onomasticon.

of doubtful authentieity, but sometimes ascribed
to Εusebius and to this period, is a little book on the
nomenclature οf the book of the Prophets containing
a short account of the several prophets and their
works.

In the last years of his life Eusebius was busy with
two main achievements. He regarded Marcellus of
Αncyra with somewhat the same feelings as Athanasius
regarded Arius, that is to say as the real leader
of the attempts to disturb the peace and unity οf the
church by essentially οne-sided and erroneous teaching.
Ηe therefore wrote two treauses againsty
Marcellus, one generally known as the Contra
Marcellum, the οther as the De ecclesiastica theo 1
 

 
logia. Both of these were published after 335. Ηe
also wrote and published a book on the life οf Constantine,
which was not so much a full biography as a
panegyric, important to us because it contains much
information about the Council οf Νicaea and the
further ecclesiastieal actirities of the Εmperor.
With this, or closely connected with it, came also the
publication of the speech known as the De laudibus
Constantini, which Eusebius delivered in honour οf
Constantine on his thirtieth anniversary, and an
edition of the speech which Constantine himself
made to the synod. Finally, it is probable that
during his last years he was engaged in writing the
volume known as the Theophania, which is in the
main a repetition of the same arguments as those
found in the Demonstratio, and in the opening
chapters of the Historia Ecclesiastica with regard to
the appearance of the Logos in the world. It was
probably his last work; it is extant only in syriae,
and apparently was never finished, but there is still
controversy among critics as to its date and relation
to the Demonstratio.

II. The Manuscripts of the Historia
Ecclesiastica

The primary MSS. of the Historia Ecclesiastica fall
into two main groups:

l. The group ΒDMΣL.

B, Codex Parisinus, 1431 (vellum, s. xi-xii),
formerly Colbert. 621 and Reg. 2280,
called Ε by Burton. In the Bibliothèque
Nationale.

D, Codex Parisinus 1433 (vellum, s. xi-xii),
called F by Ηeikel. In the Bibliothèque
Νationale.

M, Codex Marcianus 838 (vellum, s. xii),
called Η by Burton. In St. Mark's
Library at Venice.

Σ, an ancient syriac version, probably made
early in the fifth century.

L, the translation of Rufinus made in 402.

In this group M most frequently differs from B and
D. Generally this seems due to error in M, but
sometimes BD have an error in common against M
owing to their having been influenced by a later
“learned’’ recension which did not effect M (see
p. xxix). The combination MD is usually inferior, so
that B is on the whole the best Ms. of the group.
The decision between B and M can often be made by
comparison with the second group of MSS. The Syriac
version is far better than Rufinus, who frequently
paraphrases and seems to have found Εusebius very
difficult to render literally, as, indeed, he is.

2. The group ΑTΕR:

Α, Codex Parisinus 1430 (vellum, s. xi),
formerly in the possession οf Cardinal
Mazarin. Called C by Burton. In the
Bibliothèque Nationale.

T, Codex Laurentianus 70,7 (vellum, s. x-xi),
called I by Burton. In the Laurentian
library in Florence.

Ε, Codex Laurentianus τὸ, 70, 20 (vellum, s. x),
called Κ by Burton. In the Laurentian
library in Florence.

R, Codex Mosquensis 50 (vellum, b. xii),
called J by Heikel. Ιn Moscow.

In this group Α is, generally speaking, the best,
though it has many individual errors. TER seem to
have a eommon clement, and probably represent a
later recension.

Schwartz thinks that BDMΣL represent the text
of the 4th edition of Eusebius, with mistakes but no
deliberate emendations. ΑTER represent the same
text οften corrected by a copy of the third edition.
It is, however, often free from the individual errors
of ΒDMΣL, which it serves to corect.

It can also be shown that there was a later
“learned” recension which has affected MSS. of
both groups, and is now found in ERBD and in some
corrections in T, quoted as Tc.

From these primary MSS. are derived the secondary
MSS. of the Historia Ecclesiastica. Schwartz has
investigated the text of all of them, and his results
can be shown most cleariy in the following scheme.

Α
Cod. Vatican. 399 (a)
Cod. Dresdpn. 85 Cod. Ottobon. 108 Cod. Laur. ]96
Cod. Marcianus 337
Cod. Parisinus Cod. Bodlelan.
1435 Misc. 2.3
(Burton's D, and(Burton's F, and
Valesius's Valesius's
Fuketianus) Savilianus)
T Ε B
Cod. Vatican. 150 cod. Sinait. 1183 Cod. Marcian. Cod. Paris
| | 339 (b) 1432 (β)
Cod. Vatican. 973 Cod. Paris. 1436 Cod. Vatican. 2205

Besides these codices which are unmixed descentants
of primary MSS. there are three others in which
the text of one of the primary MSS. has been “crossed’’
with readings found in the others. These are:

(1) Codex Parisinus, 1437 (paper, S. xiv), a descendant
Of B, crossed with some readings derived from the
A-family, probably from Cod. Dresden. 85 (or some
similar Ms.), rather than Α or a. Ιt was the basis of
the editio princeps of Stephanus (1544), and is quoted
by Valesius as Regius, by Burton as Α, and by
Schwegler as a and q. This double use by schwegler
is due to a curious accident: Burton (following
stroth and Heinichen) referred to this Ms. by error
as Ρaris. 1436, but he also possessed a collation of it
with the right number, and his posthumous editor,
not realizing that this collation referred to Burton's
Α, published it in an appendix. schwegler was
misled by this, and thus manufactured two MSS. out
of two collations of one MS.

(2) Codex Parisinus, 1434 (paper, S. xvi), a descendant
of Α crossed with B or a deseendant οf B. It
was occasionally used by Stephanus, and is quoted by
Valesius as Medicaeus, and by Burton as B.

(3) Codes Arundelianus, 539, in the British Museum
(paper, s. xv), a carelessly written descendant of Α
(not of a) crossed with the B group. Quoted by
Burton as G.

III. The Printed Text of the Historia
Ecclesiastica

The following independent editions of the Greek
text of the Historia Ecclesiastica have been published.

(1) Stephanus: Paris, 1544. Reprinted several

 
times; the best of the later editions being at Geneva
in 1612 It was based on codd. Ρaris. 1437 and 1434.

(2) Valesius: Ρaris, 1659. This was based on four
MSS., the two used by Stephanus which Valesius
(Henri de Valois) called Regius (cod. Ρaris. 1437) and
Medicaeus (cod. Ρaris. 1434) and two others at Ρaris,
cod. Paris. 1430 (A), which was then in the possession
of Cardinal Mazarin, and cod. Paris. 1435, which he
called Fuketianus. To the text he added many
valuable notes which still are indispensable.

The edition of Valesius was reprinted at least three
times in the seventeenth century, at Mainz in 1672, at
Ρaris in 1677, and at Amsterdam in 1695. Αn excellent
reprint, containing some more note of Valesius
collected from scattered sources, was issued in 1720
by Reading in Cambridge; this was reprinted in
Turin in 1746, and in Migne's Patrologia Graeca in
Paris in 1857.

(3) Stroth: Halle, 1779. This edition was never
completed, nor has it now any valuc; but it deserves
to be mentioned if only for the pious memory or a
man whose aims and vision were greater than his
means. F. Α. Stroth collected much new information
as to MSS., but was unable to afford the expense
of obtaining collations, so that his real apparatus
remained that of Valesius.

(4) Zimmermann: Frankfort, 1822. E. Zimmerman's
edition was in the main little more than a
reprint of the text of Valesius and added nothing of
importance to the material for reconstructing text.

(5) Ηeiniehen, ed. 1: Leipzig, 1827. Heinichen's
edition of Eusebius is a good example of the waste of
labour incurred by those who edit texts on the basis
of inaccurate collations. His first edition was

 
published in 1827. It did not go much beyond the
work of Zimmerman, or, in other words, of valesius.
In 1840 he published a Supplementa notarum ad
Eusebii Historiam Ecclesiasticum, which contained a
statement of the variants found in Burton and of
cod. Dresden. 185. Finally in 1868 he published a
second edition in which he collected all the information
which was to be found in prerious editions οf
Εusebius. some of the collations for this edition he
made himself, or had made for him, but they prove
to have been in almost every instance far from
satisfactory. Νοr did he seem to understand
pertectly the collations found in οther editions. The
result is that his book cannot be trusted and was
never likely to lead to true results.

(6) Burton: Oxford, 1838. This edition, by Edward
Burton, building οn and adding to the work of Stroth,
was unfortunately also based on imperfect collations.
But it contained for the first time the readings of
ΑTΕBM and of cod. Arundelianus. It was published,
after his death, at Oxford in 1838 and reissued in 1845
and again in 1856; it also served as the text of a
partial edition by W. Bright, issued in 1872 and 1881.

(7) Schwegler: Tübingen, 1852.
was in method a great improvement on its predecessors;
but its material was really that of Burton,
and schwegler's results are nullified by the inaccuracy
of the collations.

(8) Laemmer: Schaffhausen, 1859-62. This was a
thoroughly bad text, being in the main Schwegler's,
changed in many places to agree with cod. Mareianus
388 (M), which Laemmer thought was the best Ms.

(9) Dindoft: Leipzig, 1871. This is perhaps the
best known of all editions of Eusebius, as it was

 
issued in the convenient “Teubner texts,” but
is merely an inaceurate reprint of Schwegler.

(10) Schwartz: Leipzig, 1903. This edition has
rendered obsolete all except that of Valesius. It is
based on new and probably accurate collations of all the
known MSS. Its text is followed in thepresent volumes.
It is possible that some future editor may conceivably
reopen the question οf the merits οf the two groups of
primary MSS., but he will have to build on Schwartz's
work. It is not a commentary, but much of the
material on which a commentary could be based is
to be found in the references given in its apparatus.

The fullest statement of the printed effitions of
Eusebius and the manuscripts upon which they are
based is to be found in an article by Α. C. Headlam in
the Journal of Theological Studies for October 1902.
pp. 93 ff. It is stated at the beginning of this
article that it is a draft of prolegomena for a projected
edition, but nothing more has yet appeared of this
great undertaking.

one other book remains to be mentioned although
it is not an edition of the text. The translation
of the Historia Ecclesiastica by Α. C. M‘Giffert
the Νicene and Ροst-Νicene Fathers, second Series,
vol. i., 1904, is provided with historical notes which
furnish the only valuable continuous supplement to
valesius: no student οf Εusebius can afford to neglect
them.

IV. the plan of eusebius in the Historia
Ecclesiastica and the sources which he used

The general plan of the Historia Ecclesiastica is
clear and lucid. The chronology adopted is that of

 
the Roman Emperors, and the events are arranged
reign by reign. But there is little or no attempt to
give any closer dating than this and the relation
between events during the same reign is not indicated.
To this there is one exception. The bishops of
Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem are given,
and in the case of Rome and Alexandria the exact
dates are given. Where did Eusebius obtain this
information? The researches of Lipsius, Lightfoot,
and Harnack have shown that he used the chronological
material collected by Hippolytus and
Africanus, and Lightfoot thought that there was a
still earlier list compiled by Hegesippus, but to
discuss at due length the problems involved would
demand more space than is at present available ;
since Harnack's Chronologie the main contributions
have been in reviews and periodicals, the chief
English writers being Η. J. Lawlor, C. Η. Turner,
and J. K. Fotheringham.

One further observation is necessary. The object
of the whole book was to present the Christian
“Succession,” which did not merely mean, though it
certainly included, the apostolic succession of the
bishops of the four great “thrones,” but rather the
whole intellectual, spiritual, and institutional life of
the Church. It cannot be too strongly emphasised
that Eusebius, like all early church historians, can
be understood only if it be recognized that whereas
modern writers try trace the development, growth,
and change of doctrines and institutions, their predecessors
were trying to prove that nothing of
the kind ever happened. According to them the
Church had had one and only one teaching from the
beginning; it had been preserved by the “Succes-

 
sion’’ and heresy was the attempt οf the Devil to
change it.

In tracing “the succession’’ Eusebius quotes and
refers to many writers. To give any complete
description of them would be to write a handbook
to early Christian literature; but it seems desirable
to give a short account οf the chief writings referred
to in the books translated in this volume, book by
book, and to indicate the points of interest and
difficulty which they present.

Boox I—The chief sourees drawn on by
apart from the Νew Testament, are Josephus,
Africanus, and the Archives of Edessa.

Josephus.—Josephus, the son of Marthias, who
took the name οf Flavius in honour οf the emperors
of the Flavian house, was born in A.D. 37 or 38. Ηe
belonged to the highest Jewish aristocracy, being
descended on his mother's side from Jonathan the
Maccabee. After studying all the seets of the Jews
he became a Pharisee. Ηe went to Rome when he
was twenty-six years οld on a political mission, and
hereafter he appears to have been quite sincere in
his desire, though somewhat shifty in his tactics, to
bring about better relations between the Jews and
the Romans. During the Jewish war which began
in 66 he belonged to the moderate party, and was
entrusted with the command of Galilee. Ηis eareer
here was much hindered by the opposition of John οf
Gischala. Ηe was besieged in Jotatata, and at last
was forced to surrender. As he had preferred
surrender to death the Jews regarded him as a
renegade, and attributed the worst motives to his
persistent efforts to secure peace before the inevitable
catastrophe which he foresaw. Ηe became friendly

 
with Vespasian and Titus, and when the war ended
obtained a grant of lands in Palestine, the privilege
of Roman citizenship, and οther distinctions. Ηe
appears to have lived until after the year 100, as
his autobiography was written after the death οf
Agrippa II., who died in that year.

Αfter the fall of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 he wrote the
history of the Jewish war (Bellum Iudaicum) in seven
books. Ιn this the first two books give an introductory
history from the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes
to the beginning οf the war; Books III.-VI.
describe the war down to the capture of Jemsalem;
and Book VII. describes the last scenes. This work
is said to have been accepted and even revised by
Vespasian and Titus. Its main object no doubt was
to make the Jews and the Romans understand each
other better, but a desire that they should appreciate
Josephus's own service to both sides can be clearly
seen.

Some years later Josephus supplemented this
work by a larger one giving the history of the Jewish
people up to the beginning of the war. This was
arranged in twenty books and was called the Ἀρχαιολογία
Ἰουδαική. This was translated into Latin as
the Antiquitates Iudaeorum, and it is therefore usuauy
quoted in English as the Antiquities. It was probably
completed about Α. D. 93.

Almost immediately after this Josephus also wrote
a work in two books in answer to Apion. This Apion
was a famous controversialist who lived in the middle
of the first century and wrote a history οf Egypt and
a book against the Jews. Ηe figures largely in the
Clementine homilies. Νone of his works are extant,
but the fragments which remain are collected in

 
Müller, Fragmenta Ἠῶ. Graec. (see also the
by Lightfoot in the Dictionary of Christian Biography.)

Finally in old age he wrote his autobiography,
usually quoted as the Vita.

Eusebius makes many quotations from Josephus,
whieh are usually accurate. Only in the account of the
death of Agrippa the First is there any serious divergence,
and this is probably accidental (see pp. 130 f.).

The best text of Josephus is that of Niese, Berlin,
1887. Niese also published in 1888 a smaller edition
omitung the apparatus criticus.

The first translation 1 in English that of Whiston,
which has been often reprinted, and was superficially
revised by shilleto in 1889—90. It is not free
inaccuracies, but Josephus is very difficult to render,
as his Greek is bad and his style obscure. Explanation
as well as a new translation is desirable, and
there are few books more needed by Scholars at the
present time than an historical commentary on the
second half of the Antiquities and on the Jervish War.
Αt present there is on neither any commentary.

Julius Africanus.—Julius Africanus, sometimes,
but probably wrongly, called Sextus or Sextus
Julius, is stated by suidas to have been a Libyan who
served in the army of Severus in 195, and afterwards
settled in Emmau (Nicopolis) though he probably
also spent some time in Alexandria. When his
home was ruined he went, in 221 or a little later, on
an embassy to the Emperor, either Elagabalus or
Alexander Severus, and was made the head of a
reparation commission Whieh rebuilt the city under
the name of Nicopolis. The exact time of his death
 

 
is unknown, but he was still alive in 240 when he
corresponded with origen. Besides the information
given in the Historia Ecclesiastica of Εusebius and in
Eusebius Chron. ann. 221, some details are found in
Sozomen, Hist. Eccl. v. 1; in Jerome, De viris
illustribus, 63; in George syncellus, who may have
used the lost introduction to the Chronicon of Eusebius;
in Cedrenus, Hist. Comp. 207, and in Moses of
Chorene, ii. 27.

Ηe was οne of the most learned of the writers in
the third century. Ηis chief work was a treatise on
chronology in five books on which the Chronicon οf
Εusebius was largely based. This began with the
creation and went down at least to the year 221. It
appears to have consisted, like most chronological
books of the period, of two parts, a “Chronology’’
and a “Canon.” The “Chronology’’ was an
or a series of essays, on critical question; the
“Canon’’1 was a series of tables in which a summary
of events was arranged in parallel columns showing
how the numbers of years in one system, such as the
Greek olympiads, corresponded to another, such as
the years after Christ. Ηe appears to have written
in order to prove the “chiliastic’’ view οf history
rather than in the interests of pure chronology,
and οn this point Εusebius was controverting rather
than copying him. Apart from this, however, his
work was doubtless the source of much οf the framework
οf the Historia Ecclesiastica (see especially
Schwartz, Prolegomena, pp. ccxv ff.).

Besides this great book Africanus wrote a letter to
Aristides, whose identity is unknown, on thc dis-
 

 
crepancies between the genealogies in Matthew and
Luke. This is quoted in part by Eusebius, H. Ε. i. 7.
Αnd he also wrote a letter to Οrigen on the authenticity
οf the book of Susanna. This is referred to by
Εusebius, Η. Ε. vi. 31, and is preserved in several
manuscripts οf Οrigen.

The authentieity of these writings is undoubted.
There is also aseribed to him a work ealled κεστοί,
which means Girdles. It apparently consisted of a
collection of essays varying in character from Agriculture
to the Αrt of War. Α few extracts from this
book remain, but not Sufficient to prove or disprove
its ascription to Africanus.

The most convenient collection of the fragments of
Africanus is still that of Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol. ii. The
most important work on his writing has been done by
Η. Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus, 1880 and 1885, but
except for detailed study of the points raised by
Gelzer, a suffieient account is provided by the article
οn Africanus in the Dictionary of Christian Biography,
and by Harnack, Chronologie, ii. pp. 89 ff.

The Archives of Edessa.—According to Η.Ε. i. 12.
3 ff. Εusebius made uSe of material in the Archives
of Εdessa. These appear to have consisted of two
divisions. There was an ancient royal archive
at Εdessa and a later ecclesiastical one which was
probably not instituted until the beginning of the
fourth century. According to Moses of Chorene
Julius Αfricanus made use of all this material, which
was also known to the editor of the Chronicon Edessenum.
Ιt is not certain whether Εusebius had himself
seen this archive or made use of it only at secondhand
through the writings of Julius Αfricanus, but
in any case there is no reason to doubt the statement

 
that the apocryphal story of Abgar Uchama was
found in the archives at Edessa. which is also the
probable source—direct οr indirect—for most οf the
information contained in Eusebius as to the history
of Christianity outside the Roman Empire in the
region of Mesopotamia and such details as the story
of Mani. The rather complicated questions concerning
the story of this archive can be studied best in
Hallier, Untersuchungen über die edess. Chronik
u. Unters. ix. 1, 1892).

Book ΙΙ.—In the second book Josephus is again
used, and extracts are made from Philo, Clement
Alexandria and Hegesippus.

Philo.—Philo was probably born about the year
30 B.C., and lived on until the beginning of the second
half of the first century Α.D. He belonged to a
wealthy and distinguished family in Alexandria.
Ηis brother, Alexander, was the Alabarch 1 of the city
and had close relations with the imperial family in
Rome. Philo was essentially a philosopher, and
spent his life endeavouring to reconcile the jewish
Law with the Platonic Faith. He was also a voluminous
writer and his books were treasured by Origen,
and so passed into the library at Caesarea and thence
into the general tradition of Christian writings.

The statements about Philo's writings in Book II.
οf the Historia Ecclesiastica are so confused that it
is desirable to give the facts about them in somewhat
clearer form.

Ρhilo wrote three great books οn the Pentateuch:

(1) The Quaestiones et solutiones Ζητήματα καὶ λúτεις).
Ηοw far Ρhilo carried this book, which dealt with the
problems of the Pentateuch, is not known, but
Eusebius like ourselves, was unacquainted with any
work going beyond Exodus.

(2) The Legum allegoriae. This was divided into
a number of books of which three are known as
Legum allegoriarum libri i., ii., and iii., but the οthers
which follow, each with separate titles, were apparently
without numbers. The list of these books
is De cherubim et flammeo gladio (Gen. iii. 24), De
sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Gen. iv. 2-4), Quod deterius
potiori insidiari soleat (Gen. iv. 8-15), De posteritate
Caini sibi visi sapientis et quo pacto sedem mutat (Gen.
iv. 16-25), De gigantibus (Gen. vi. 1-4), De agricultura
(Gen. ix. 20), De ebrietate (Gen. ix. 21), De sobrietate
(Gen. ix. 24-27), De confusione linguarum (Gen. xi. 1-9),
De migratione Abrhami (Gen. xii. 1-6), Quis rerum
divinarum haeres sit (Gen. xv. 2-8), De congressu
quaerendae eruditionis causa (Gen. xvi. 1-6), De profugis
(Gen. xvi. 6-14), De mutatione nominum (Gen. xvii.
1-22), De somniis liber i. (Gen. xxviii. 12 ff.).

(3) A Systematic Description of the Mosaic Legislation.
It is divided into three parts: The first deals with the
ereation of the world; this is known as the De mundi
opificio. Ιn the manuscripts and editions οf Ρhilo
this work has been placed at the beginning of Ρhilo’s
works, before the first book of the Legum allegoriae,
but it probably ought to be put back into the
position here claimed for it. The second part deals
with the biographies of the virtuous men of the Old
Testament, and is known as the Νόμοι ἄγραφοι. of
it are extant the De Abrahamo, and the De Iosepho,

 
also known as Τhe Statesman ὁ Πολιτικός), because
Joseph was treated by Philo as illustrating th
virtues of vivic life. The third part of the Systematic
Desciption went οn to deal with the consideration
the Mosaic legislation properly so-called, and w
divided into two subdivisions, (a) the De Decalogo
(b) the De specialibus legibus οr the “consideratio
οf the special laws which follow the Ten Comman
ments and are connected with them.” This
contained in four books. To these were added two
appendices, οne οn three virtues, De fortitudine, De
caritate, De poenitentia, with the possible addition οf a
fourth, De nobilitate, and one on the treatment of the
good and evil under the title of De praemiis et poenis
and De execrationibus.

Besides these three great books οn the Pentateuch
Philo also wrote various single works: (1) the Vita
Mosis. (2) Quod omnis probus liber, with which went
another book now lost, Quod omnis improbus servus.
(3) Α great work which was apparently intended to
do something similar to that which Lactantius did
afterwards for the Christians in his book De morti
persecutorum, and to show that no one persecutcd the
Jews without suffering from the punishment οf God
at the end of his while while the Jews received the
rewards of their virtues. Probably he dealt in this
way with the careers οf Sejanus, Flaccus, Caligula,
and Pilate, but it is οnly the story οf Flaccus which is
at all fully preserved in the Adversus Flaccum and the
Legatio and Caium. It would appear that there were
originally five books in this work of which only the
two mentioned have been preserved.

Αnοther work published separately is the De
providentia, οnly found now om Armenian, which is

 
also the case with the De Alexandro et quod propriam
rationem muta animalia habeant.

Finally two books, now only partially preserved,
appear. to have been entitled the Ὑποθετικά and the
Defence of the jervs. Whether these were two οr one
seems doubtful. To these most critics add a long
book, still extant, De vita contemplativa, giring an
account of the Therapeutae in Εgypt, but there are
still a few who think that this is not a genuine work
οf Philo.

Ιt will be seen by comparing this list of the writings
of Ρhilο with the references made in Eusebius ii. 
that Εusebius has refeued to the greater number οf
writings of Ρhilο which are still extant, but he has
confused the order of the books so that if we did not
possess οther information it would be quite impossible
for us to reconstmct the relation of the sub-titles
which Εusebius quotes to the great divisions into
which Ρhilo’s works really fall. The most probable
suggestion is that of Dr. Lawlor, who thinks that
Εusebius knew Philo only through volumes οf tracts
which were preserved in the library at Caesarea, and
that he copied out the titles without always recognizing
the relation οf one tract to another, being
isled by the accidents οf binding (see Lawlor,
Eusebiana, pp. 138—145).

The fullest and best sources of information on
Ρhilo’s writings are Ε. Schürer, Geschichte des
Volkes, ed. 4, vol. iii. pp. 633—716; the prolegomena
Cohn and Wendland's edition, and the article in
the Dictionary of Christian Biography. The two
fullest editions are Mangey, London, 1742, and Cohn
and Wendland, Berlin, 1896—1915, which
everything except the fragments, for which Mangey

 
must still be consulted, and the Armenian
published by Aucher, Paralipomena Armena, 1826.
There is also a valuable edition οf the De vita contemplativa
by F. C. Conybeare.

Clement of Alexandria.—Clement of Αlexan
was probably born in the middle οf the secocentury.
According to Julius Africanus, quoted
Cedrenus, he came into fame in the reign οf Co
modus (A.D. 180—193) and the Chronicon οf
apparently assigns the date 193 to his ordination as
presbyter. According to Eusebius, Praeparatio evangelica,
ii. 2. 64, he was converted to Christianity from
heathenism and was not born in the church, and
according to Epiphanius his birthplace was claimed
by Αthens as well as by Alexandria. Ηe travelled
much in the east, and towards the end of the second
century became head of the catechetical school
Alecandria. Ηe appears to have retired from public
life in Alexandria during the persecution under
Severus, A.D. 202 ff. According to the lerter d
Alexander, 1 who was bishop of Jerusalem in 212, and,
wrote about 211 from prison to the church at Antioch,
Clement had been living in the Cappadocian Cesarea
and must have been still alive when he wrote, as he
was going to carry Alexander's letter. According
to a later letter of the same Αlexander to Origen
Clement died soon after this, for this second letter,
which can hardly be later than 217 and may have
been earlier, implies that he was dead.

The list of Clement's writings is given by Eusebius,
Η.Ε. vi. 13. Of those to which he refers the προτρεπτικός
or Exhortation to the Greeks, 2 is completely
 

 
preserved as is also the Παιδαγωγός, or Instructor,
which is in three books. These two works seek to
have been intended as the first two parts of a
connected series. The first, the Προτρεπτικός, deals
with the Logos in relation to the conversion of the
heathen; ; the Παιδαγωγός also deals with the Logos
but in relation to morality ; and the third book was
intended to deal with the Logos as the teacher who
initiated man into true knowledge. Ιt is possible,
but far from certain, that the Στρωματεῖς 1 mentioned
by Εusebius and still partially preserved represent
this third volume.

Of the οther works mentioned by Εusebius only
fragments are found except the small treatise known
as Quis dives salvetur. The loss of the Hypotyposes 
is greatly to be regretted, but in addition to the
quotations preserved in Εusebius three οther fragements
have been thought to have originally belonged
to them. These are the Excerpta Theodoti,3 the
Eclogae propheticae, and the Adumbrationes in epistolas
canonicas. It has, however, been suggested that the
Excerpta Theodoit really belong to the eighth book
of the Στρωματεῖς. In any ease they are very valuable
information as to the teaching of Theodotus, for
they seem to represent the notes which Clement had
made rather than a finished literary production.

The best edition of Clement is that of Stählin,
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
 
 
 

 
Jahrhunderte, issued by the Berlin Acadeny. The
three volumes containing the text and introduction
of this edition are published ; the fourth volume,
which has not yet appeared, will contain the index
and some additional dissertations, but even as it
stands Stählin's edition takes the place of all
For the study of Clement special referenee should be
made to the writings of de Faye, especially his
Clément d' Alexandrie, 1898 (see also the
Clement of Αlexandria in Ηarnack’s Chronologie
vol. ii. pp. 1 ff.).

Hegesippus. — Ηegesippus appears to have been
of Ηebrew birth (Eusebius, Η. Ε. iv. 22), but there
is no evidence whether he was born a Christian or
converted from Judaism. Ηe certainly visited, and
perhaps lived in Rome. If Εusebius means in the
passage referred to that he lived until the time of
Eleutherus his death must have been between 175
and 189. The book from which Eusebius derived
much of his information as to the early church was
entitled Πέντε ὑπομνήματα ἐκκλησιαστικῶν πραξέων,
Five Treatises on the Acts of the Church. Whether
this was an ordered history or a collection of miscellaneous
οbservations cannot be proved, but the latter
view is more usually held, and the most probable
theory is that of Lawlor, who thinks that the ὑπομνήματα
were an aplogetic work which only contained a
few scattered references to history. Some confusion
periodically arises from the fact that in a recension
of Josephus, of which a Latin version appeared in
the fifth century, the name “ Josephus ” was spelt
“ Hegesippus.”

The extant fragments οf the genuine Ηegesippus
can be found in Routh, Rel. Sacr. vol. i. pp. 207-219,

 
but more fully and with more complete reference to
the authorities in Lawlor's Eusebiana, pp. 98-107,
and the problem connected with him may be studied
best in that work and in the articles in Smith's
Dictionary of Christian Biography and in Herzog's
Real-Encyklopädie.

Book III. — In this book Josephus remains the
chief source of information about the Jews, while
Ηegesippus and Clement are drawn on for the history
of the Church ; but beside them Papias, Caius, Clement
of Rome, and Ignatius are quoted or referred to.

Papias. — Ρapias according to Eusebius (iii. 36)
was bishop οf Hierapolis, but we do not know the
exact chronology of his life. Irenaeus (Adv. haer.
v. 33. 4) says that he was a companion of Ρolycarp,
and he is quoted by Εusebius (iii. 39. 9) as claiming
to have seen the daughters of Philip the Evangelist,
so that he can scarcely have been born later than the
end of the first century. Ιn οne of the fragments
of his work preserved by Philip Sidetes (edited by
De Boor in Texte und Unter suchungen, v. 2) he refers
to the belief that those whom Christ raised from the
dead lived “ until the time οf Hadrian, ” so that he
can hardly have written earlier than 140.1 On the
other hand, as Irenaeus regarded him as belonging
to a past generation, he can scarcely have written
later than 160. Thus the middle of the second
century is probably the period at which he wrote.
Ηis work, from which Eusebius quotes, was entitled
Λογίων κυριακῶν ἐξήγησις. Unfortunately the book
is lost, and no one knows what the title means.
Λόγια generally means “ oracles, ” and is frequently
used οf the Old Testament, but it might be used of
 

 
the teaching οf Jesus. The quotation given by
Εusebius iii. 39, which may come from the preface of
Ρapias, suggests, but does not prove, that the title
should be translated Oracles of the Lord rather than
Oracles about the Lord Thus it is uncertain whether
it was a work οn the interpretation of the Old Testament
or on the Gospels or on traditions behind the
Gospels. There is an enormous literature on the
subject, but most οf it is in the interests of some
theory οf the origin of the Synoptic Gospels and is
almost worthless. The clearest and best statement
of the facts is in Ηarnack’s Chronologie, i. pp. 356 ff.,
and on the interpretation οf the quotation in Εusebius,
Η.Ε. iii. 39, Dom Chapman's John the Presbyter
(Oxford, 1910), is peculiarly lucid and thorough.

Clement of Rome and Ignatius. — Both these writers
have left extant works which are published in the
Loeb Classical Library, The Apostolic Fathers, vol. i.

Caius. — Nothing is known of him except what
Eusebius tells us, but his writings and his relation
to the Alogi, who rejected the Gospel of John, have
been the subject οf an extensive literature, to which
the latest and most thorough contribution is made
by C. Schmidt in an elaborate appendix to his
edition of the “ Εpistοla Αpostolorum ” published in
1919 as Gespräche Jesu in Texte und Unter suchungen xliii.

Book IV. — In the fourth book Εusebius deals with
the last rebellion of the Jews, referring to Aristo of
Ρella, with the Αpologists of the time of Hadrian,
with the Gnostics οf the second century, with Justin
Martyr, with Polycarp and other martyrs, and with
Tatian. In the 21 st chapter he gives a list of the
chief Christian writers of the the time οf Marcus Aurelius.

Aristo of Pella. — In Hist. Eccl. iv 6 Εusehius

 
describes the last war of the Jews against the Romans
in A.D. 132. Ηe refers to the account given by Aristo
of Ρella. The natural interpretation is that Aristo
had written a history of this time. But nothing is
known of him except that in the seventh century
Maximus the Confessor says that Aristo wrote the
Dialogus of Jason and Papiscus, which was mentioned
by Clement of Αlexandria, who seems to have attributed
it to Luke the Evangelist, though the text of
this statement may be corrupt. Ιt is therefore
possible that ΕusebiuS is merely referring to some
reference introduced into this lost Dialogue (see
Harnack, Altchritliche Literature, i. pp. 92 ffi).

Quadratus and Aristides.— Εusebius mentions
apologists of the reign of Hadrian — Quadratus and
Αristides. The work of Quadratus is lost, but the
apology of Aristides has been recently discovered,
though in an imperfect condition. Α Syriac translation
was found by J. Rendel Harris in 1889 on
Mount Sinai, and it was then recognized by J.
Αrmitage Robinson as extant in Greek in the speech
put into the mouth of the Christian Νachor in the
story of Barlaam and Josaphat. The Syriac and the
Greek differ widely, and it is disputed which of the
two is nearer the original. Both forms are given in
Rendel Ηarris’s “ The Αpology of Aristides ” in Texts
and Studies i. 1. The Syriac, which alone has the
of Apology, suggests that it was addressed to
Antoninus Pius rather than to Hadrian, but the text
is in any case corrupt and the point is not certain.
Ηarnack’s Altchristliche Literatur i. pp. 96 ff. and ii. 2.
pp. 271 ff. gives the best statement of the facts and
references to other books, but to these should be
added Geffckens's Zrvei griechische Apologien.

The Gnostic Writers. — In Hist. Eccl. iv. 7 and 11
Eusebius mentions the chief Gnostic writers known
to him. His information was apparently derived in
main from Irenaeus with probably some use of
Clement of Alexandria, Hippolytus, and a lost work
(the Syntagma) of Justin Μartyr. The best modern
books introductory to the subject of Gnosticism are
those of Lipsius (especially his Quellen der ältesten
ketzergeschichten and his artieles in the Dictionary of
Christian Biography), Ηarnack’s Quellenkritik der Geschichte
des Gnosticismus, and and Faye's Gnosptiques et
Gnosticisme, but it is probably quicker and certainly
better to begin by reading Irenaeus, Hippolytus, and
— quite especially — the Excerpta Theodoti οf Clement
of Alexandria.

Justin Martyr. — Justin according to his own
account (at the beginning of his dialogus with
Trypho) was born in Samaria and became in his youth
a zealous but unsuccessful student of philosophy.
Ηe was converted to Christianity before Α. D. 135 (the
time to which the Dialogue refers) and died as a
martyr under Junius Rusticus, who was praetor under
Marcus Aurelius between 163 and 167. The Chronicon
Paschale fixes the year of his martyrdom as 165, and
there is no reason why this should not be correct.

According to Eusebius he wrote at least ten books,
of which he gives the list in Hist. Eccl. iv. 18. 2-9. Of
these two are extant (1) The Apology to Antoninus
Pius, and (2) The Dialogus with Trypho ; but there
is a curious literary puzzle in connexion with the
Αpοlogy. The printed texts of Justin (which represent
the Paris manuscript, Paris. 450 of the year 1364
of which all other manuscripts are copies) give two
aplogies of Justin, and Eusebius also states that he

 
wote two apοlogies. It would therefore be natural
tο. conclude that We possess the twο which Eusebids
had. But except in Hist. Εccl. iv. l6. 1 ff. which is
ambiguοus, Εusebius quotes as the first Αοlogy
passages from both the printed boοks. The pοint
has not been completely cleared up, but it seems
probable that the printed texts make up the Eusebian
Rrst apology and that the second οne known to
Εusebius has been lost.

Three other wοrks of Justin mentioned by Εusebius
purport tο be given in the printed texts—the Oratio
cοntra Graecos, the Cοhοrtatio ad Graecos, and the
Dε mοnarchia—but it is generally held that these texts
are spurious, and it is unlikely that they are those to
which Εusebius refers.

The best effition of Justin is that of Otto, 3rd
edition, l876. The best statements of the manuscripts
and the ecclesiastical tradition are by Ηarnack
in his Altchristliche literature i. pp. 99 ff., and ii. l ff.,
274 ff., and in the Texte und Untersuchungen I. i. 2.
The most eomplete discussion of Justin's teaching is
by Goodenough, Justin Martyr, 1928, which also
contains a very full bibliography.

Τhe Acts of the Martyrs.—Though ΕusebiuS was
active in cοllecting evidence as to the martyrdoms
of the earliest Christians, and made a collection of
documents describing them (see p. xiv) he has surprisingly
little to tell in his histοry. In the first five
bοοks he relates the martyrdom of James and Simeon,
the Lord’s brοthers, but his information is from
Ηegesippus; he also mentions the martyrdom of
Telesphorus, Bishop of Rome, Publius, Bishop of
Αthens, Ignatius of Αntioch, Justin, Ρtolemaeus,
Lucius, and Sagaris ; but he gives nο details and

 
seems to have had no documents about them, though
the Acta of Justin are extant in a probably genuine
form. Ηe had the Acta of Polycarp, οf Pionius, of
Carpus, Ρapylus and Agathonice, and οf Apollonius
all of which are still extant, and the account οf th
martyrs of Lyons and Vienne, which has disappear
except for his extensive quotations at the beginni
of the fifth book.

Tatian.—The only work οf Tatian which is
in its original form is the Oratio ad Graecos, which was
once preserved in the famous Arethas manuscript
Paris 451 of the year Α.D. 914. The pages containing
Tatian's work are missing, but several later MSS.
are direct or indirect copies.

The Diatessaron of Tatian is not wholly lost.
There is an Arabic version, in which, however, the
text has been accommodated to the later Syrian text
of the Gospels ; there is some connexion between
it and the Ηarmοny found and edited by Victor of
Capua about the year 545 ; and it is possible that
some mediaeval Dutch and German harmonies
indicate the existence οf an Old Latin harmony
based on Tatian's works.1 Besides these, and in
many ways more important than these, are a series
οf quotations in early Syriac writers and the commentary
of Ephraim on the Diatessaron, partially preserved
in Armenian.

The best edition οf the Oratio ad Graecos is that of
E. Schwartz, and of the Diatessaron that given in the
Ante-Nicene Church Fathers. See also especially Zahn's
For schungen i. and the treatment of Tatian in his
Geschichte des N. T. Kanon.

Writers in the time of Marcus Aurelius. — In Hist.
Eccl. iv. 20 f. Eusebius gives a list of the writers
οf the end of the second century : Theophilus of
Antioch, Hegesippus, Dionysius of Corinth, Pinytus
of Crete, Philip of Gortyna, Apollinarius of Hierapolis,
Melito, Musanus, Modestus, and Irenaeus. In
the following chapters he gives a short summary οf
the writings of each of them with the exception of
Irenaeus whom he reserves for the next book. Νοne
of these writings are extant except a few fragments
of Melito in Syriac, and the three books of Theophilus
Ad Autolycum, published in Otto's Corpus Apologeticum
cum and in other collections. The first printed edition
was issued at ürich in 1546. The facts relating to
Hegesippus have been dealt with above on p. xlvi.

Book V— In this book Εusebius deals first
the persecution of the Christians in the time of
Μarcus Aurelius, illustrating it by long quotations
from the letter of the churches of Lvons and Vienne
referred to above (p. lii). Ηe then describes the
works of Irenaeus, and Rhodo, and then turns to
Montaism, the Paschal controversy, and the heresy
of Artemon and the two Theodoti.

Irenaeus. — Irenaeus was probably a native οf the
province of Asia and in his youth saw Florinus and
Ρolycarp, presumably at Smyrna. Polycarp was put
to death in 155, so that Irenaeus can hardly have
been born much later than 140. Florinus became a
Gnostic about 190 ; he was probably a little older
than Irenaeus, who says that as a boy he had admired
his splendid position in the Emperor's court. Therefore,
unless Florinus was converted when quite old,
Irenaeus cannot have been born much earlier than

 
140 —ten years seems the extreme of possibility, and
every year earlier than 140 becomes less and less likely.

It is unknown how or when he left Asia, but it is
certain that in 177, the year of the persecution at
Lyons and Vienne, he went to Rome with the report
of the churches on the martyrdom of some of their
members, and he is described as being at that time
a presbyter. Shortly after this he became Bishop
of Lyons, and supported the Asiatic side in the
Paschal controversy with Victor of Rom in 190.
Nothing certain is known of his death. Jerome (but
no earlier writer) speaks of him as a martyr. and it
has been thought that he was put to death in the
persecution of Septimius Severus in 202, but this is
merely a guess.

Of his many writings mentioned by Eusebius (see
especially Hist. Eccl. iv. 11, 20, 26) only two are
fully extant and neither in the original language.
The Πρὸς Αἱρέσεις or Ἔλεγχος καὶ ἀνατροπὴ τῆς
ψευδωνύμου γωώσεως,1 quoted as the Adversus Haereses,
is found in Latin ; the best edition is that of Ηarvey
(Cambridge, 1857). The Ἀπόδειξιε τοῦ ἀποστολικοῦ
κηρύγματος2 or Apostolic Preaching, a treatise sent
by Ιrenaeus to his friend Marcianus, is found in
Αrmenian and was published in 1907 in the Texte
und Unter suchungen, xxxi. 1.

Ρrobably the best description of the theology of
Irenaeus is not in any book devoed to him, but in
W. Bousset's Kyrios Christos.

The anti-Montainst Writers. — Ιn the fifth book, after
long extracts from the letter οf the Churches οf Lyons
and Vienne about their martyrs, and some extracts
 
 

 
from Irenaeus, Εusebius goes οn to describe the work
f Clement οf Alexandria (see above, pp. xilv-xlv)
d of Rhodo, οf whom nothing more is known, and
hen turns to a discussion of Montanism, or the
hrygian heresy. For this he makes use of five
urce, οf which unfortunately nothing more is
own beyond what he tells us himself. These are
pollinarius of Hierapolis, Apollonius, Serapion, an
οnymous writer who addressed a letter to Αbercius,
d either Miltiades or Αlcibiades. The Abercius
dressed by the anonymous writer is the centre of
one of the romances of epigraphy. In the Acta
nctorum for Octorber 22 is given a life οf Abercius,
hich has all the marks οf lateness, but it contains
epitaph which Lightfoot and others regarded as
nuine. Other scholars doubted this, but in 1883
W. M. Ramsay 1 discovered the epitaph in Hieropolis
not Hierapolis). The fifth document to which he
fers presents a curious puzzle as to its authorship,
r it is impossible to be sure what was the name of
e writer, as in the existing manuscripts Eusebius
early speaks οf Miltiades, but the source which he
uotes equally clearly speaks of Alcibiades. One
me or the other must be wrong, but there is no
fficient evidence for a choice between them (see
ist. Eccl. v. 17). For a discussion οf these docuents
and of οther evidence relating to Montanism
e best modern book is Ν. Bonwetsch's Montanisme.

The Paschal Controversy. — In Hist. Eccl. v. 27
usebius gives a short list of writers οf the beginning
the third century, but none of them have left
tant works. Ηe then goes οn to discuss the
aschale controversy. This dispute divided the Εast
 

 
from the West. The Εast held that the fast
before Εaster Should end on the 14th οf Νisan (henc
the name “ Quartodecimans ’’) with the feast of the
resurrection following at once independently of the
day of the week, while the West followed the pres
custom οf observing the feast of the Resurrecti
on a sunday independently οf the day of the mon
and arranged the end of the fast accordingl
Eusebius quotes Polycrates of Ephesus, wh
writings are not now extant, and Irenaeus,
mentions various synods whose decrees were kn
to him but have since been lsot. For a discussi
of the action οf Victor of Rome, and οf the whole
question see Hefele's History of the
ferably in the Freneh translation which has many
valuable additional notes.

The Heresy of Artemon. — The last Ρart οf the fi
book is largely taken up with an anonymous quo
tion from a work against the Adoptionist teaching
Artemon and the two Theodoti, whose teaching th
Jesus was a man who by the power of God bec
divine is sometimes described by modern writers
“ Dynamic Monarchianis,” Theodoret, who
used this writing, says that it was called the “ Lit
Labyrinth,” obviously in allusion to the
Hippolytus against heresy, which is sometim
called “ The Labyrinth.” Modern scholars
think that the “ Little Labyrinth ’’ was itself
work of Hippolytus but this is by no means certain.

For further information as to these οr any ot
writers mentioned by Eusebius, the best and clear
guides are Harnach's Geschichte der
Litteratur, Bardenhewer's Geschichte der
Literatur, and the Dictionary of Christian Biography.