Notice

NOTITIA.

(HARLES, Bibliotheca Græca, vol. VII, Hamburg 1801, in-4, p. 335; FESSLER, Institutiones Patrologiæ, Innsbruck, 1851; vol. I.)

I. On the life and doctrine of Eusebius. II. His published Greek writings. Chronicon. Id. Evangelical Preparation. Evangelical Demonstration. Prophetic Eclogues. III. Ecclesiastical History. IV. On the Martyrs of Palestine. V. Against Hierocles. VI. Against Marcellus. VII. On Ecclesiastical Theology. VIII. Letter on the Nicene Faith. IX. On Hebrew Placenames. X. Commentaries on the Psalms. XI. On the Song of Songs. XII. On the Lives of the Prophets. XIII. Commentaries on Isaiah. XIV. Canons of the Gospels. XV. On the Discrepancy of the Gospels, to Marinus. XVI. Oration on the Praises of Constantine the Great. XVII. Four books on the Life of the same Constantine. XVIII. Fragments from the books on the Life of Pamphilus, martyr. XIX. From the collection of ancient martyrdoms. XX. Letter to Constantia Augusta. XXI. Works existing only in Latin: the first book of the Apology for Origen. XXII. Fourteen short works published by Sirmond. XXIII. Spurious Acts of Pope Sylvester I. XXIV. Unpublished writings. XXV. Lost works.

^A Eusebius, of Pamphilus, presbyter of Caesarea and martyr, not the son or sister's son, nor slave, but an intimate friend (as he took his name from him), born about A.D. 264, a brother or cousin of Eusebius of Nicomedia (born, as is likely, and educated in Palestine), a disciple perhaps of the eunuch Dorotheus, a presbyter of Antioch, of Caesarea in Palestine, which was formerly called Straton's Tower, he became bishop from A.D. 315 to 339 or 340, in which year he died, being over seventy years of age. A man dear to the Emperor Constantine, to whom he was also related by blood, and in his own age most learned, and by the judgment of Basil in *De Spiritu S.*, ch. 29, "believable for his vast learning," and, as he is truly called in a eulogy ^B by Nicephorus Gregoras, *Hist.* book XIX, p. 592, the "first of the learned men of that time." Concerning his life, about which a book by Acacius, successor to Eusebius as bishop of Caesarea, and others have existed: among other writings of this Acacius were sixteen books on Ecclesiastes (*Hieron. Catalog.* ch. 98, *vulner Judæorum*, or, as the same Jerome says in *Epist.* 152 to Minervius and Alexander, vol. III, p. 125, praising the fourth book, he calls it *Συλλεκτῶν Ζητημάτων* book V), as well as letters and writings conceived in the name of the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 360 (*Philostorg.* IV, 12). The formula of faith issued at the Council of Seleucia in A.D. 359, which Epiphanius preserved (*Epiph.* LXXIII, 25, and Socrates II, 40; *Epiph.* LXXI, 5-9, where there is a notable fragment from that book). [Regarding Marcellus and the book of Acacius against him, see Walch, *loc. cit.*, p. 1514, who also discusses at length on p. 1317 his fierce contention with Cyril of Jerusalem concerning the primacy. For Acacius, bishop of Caesarea, by virtue of long standing, confirmed by the Nicene Council, had been metropolitan. Since Cyril had attempted to claim this honor and primacy for the Church of Jerusalem as the mother of all churches, a great controversy arose between them and the other bishops of the Eastern Church; for those who sided with the Arians, acted with Acacius; while those who professed the truer doctrine sided with Cyril. By the faction and accusations of the former it came about that Cyril was removed from his office and experienced various fortunes. HARL.] Tillemont also attributes to Acacius the work *On the Faith Against Sabellius*, which Sirmond published under the name of Eusebius. See Tillemont, vol. VI, *Memor. hist. eccles.*, part II, p. 111, Brussels edition. Some fragments of this Acacius appear in published chains and manuscripts. There was another of the same age, Acacius, bishop of Tarsus, about whom *Philostorg.* V, 1; another was a presbyter and archimandrite of Beroea, whose letter—along with that of Paul the presbyter—to Epiphanius, in which he invited him in A.D. 375 to write against the heresies, is placed before the *Panarion* of Epiphanius, with Epiphanius's response. I do not know if he is the same Acacius who was bishop of Beroea, born about A.D. 431, 110 years old, whose letter-

^A of his was lost by his heirs; I do not wish to repeat what eminent men have learnedly handed down—Abraham Scultetus (a), Henr. Valesius (b), Martinus Hanckius (c), Guil. Caveus (d), Tillemontius (e), and Jo. Clericus (f)—lest I mention others at present. I only profess that I agree with the learned men who acknowledge that there are indeed various things in the writings of Eusebius concerning certain dogmas which seem to have been spoken somewhat harshly and indelicately: yet he acknowledged the mystery of the Most Holy Trinity and the Son as consubstantial [συνούσιον], born of the Father's essence, God from God, *autotheos* [αὐτόθεον], and thus he recognized that it was foreign to the proper opinion of Arius, and expressly rejected those who dared to call Christ a creature [κτίσμα] or [as being made] from what was not [ἐξ οὐκ ὄντων]—lib. I *De ecclesiast. theolog.*, cap. 9; lib. II, c. 2, p. 150 seq., which passages Socrates 11, 21 now cites; and although he feared at first to use the term *homoousios* (h), yet, having weighed the matter more maturely, he later approved it and in good faith subscribed to the condemnation of Arius at the Nicene synod. And he did not so much deny the divinity of the Holy Spirit, but taught that He was distinct from the Father and the Son, and proceeded from the Son. See lib. II *De eccl. theol.*, c. 5 seq.

Two letters to Alexander of Hierapolis are read in the *Variar.* epistolary volume concerning the Ephesian council, in the edition of Christianus Lupus (1682) and Stephanus Baluzius (*Nova collect. Concilior.* 1683), cap. 41 and 55. But in that of Jo. Garnerius (*Auctar. Opp. Theodoriti* 1684), cap. 30 and 44, and the Confession of Faith, in the edition of Lupus and Baluzius, cap. 221; in Garnerius, cap. 178. The letter to Cyril of Alexandria [is in] tom. V of the *Works* of Cyril, part II, and in the *Acts of the Council of Ephesus*, tom. III of the Council edition of Labbe, p. 382. Concerning Acacius, bishop of Melitene in Armenia and opponent of Nestorius, see Caveus ad a. 431. Combefisius exhibits in Latin in his *Bibliotheca concionatoria* a homily of his, delivered in the synod and opposed to the heresy of Nestorius, for the feast of the Annunciation. The most learned Muratori published at Padua in 1709 the letters of Firmus the bishop to that Acacius. He observes that many bishops of this name flourished at that time, such as the bishop of the Coteni, the bishop of Hellas, the bishop of the Scopeni. There were also more about A.C. 450, such as the bishop of Antioch-in-minor, the bishop of Ariarathia, the bishop of Cynnensis, the bishop of Proconessus. There was also Acacius, prefect of Armenia, who is mentioned in Justinian's novella 51. Concerning Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, whose one or two letters exist, see the same Caveus ad A.C. 471. See also Photius, cod. XLII. FABR. In the time of Acacius of Caesarea, there was also Acacius the Caesarean, a pagan sophist, a friend of Libanius, who would have even surpassed him in eloquence if he had not died as a youth, regarding whom see Eunapius p. 135 seq. and Suidas in *Ἀκάκιος*, as observed by Fabricius in vol. VIII, old ed., p. 558. HARL.

(a) Part 1 of *Medulla Patrum*, p. 820 seqq., which, following Baronius and others, judged that Eusebius favored the Arians, and enumerated various errors of Eusebius. The same author, however, on p. 855 seqq., teaches the disagreement between the doctrine of Eusebius and that which the followers of the Roman pontiff are accustomed to embrace. Add Stolle, *von dem Leben, etc., der Kirchenvat., etc.*, p. 288 seqq., who from Scultetus enumerates more of Eusebius's singular notions. Hulsemann, *Patrol.* cap. 4, p. 1014, and other founders of ecclesiastical history. HARL.

(b) H. Valesius not only prefixed his commentary on the life and writings of Eusebius to his *Ecclesiastical History*, but also added a great number of testimonies of the ancients for and against Eusebius. See below col. 53. (c) Martinus Hanckius, *De scriptoribus hist. Byz.*, cap. 1. (d) Guil. Caveus in *Chartophylax* and *Historia litteraria*, and *Vitae patrum*, published in English and translated into Latin, Belgian, and German, tom. II, and in his *Epistola apologetica* against Jo. Clericus, London 1700. 8. (e) Tillemontius, tom. VI and VII, *Memoires pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique*. (f) Jo. Clericus in *Vita Eusebii*, tom. X of the *Bibliotheque Universelle*, p. 580 seq., and in his critical letters, epist. 2, with whom they accuse Eusebius of Arianism (not to mention the ancients, Valesius, or the passage in Zonaras p. 30 cited by Cangius): Petavius, lib. I *De Trinitate*, c. 11 and 12; Rich. Montacutius *ad Euseb. contra Marcellum Ancyranum*; H. Noris, *Diss. de V synodo*, c. ult., p. 105, not to mention Sandius and others. Valesius, Bullus in *Defensio fidei Nicaenae*, p. 592 seq., 442 seq., 478 seq., 517 seq.; Calovius in *Confessio martyrum*, tom. II *Opp. anti-Socin.*, p. 519; Florentinius *ad Hieronymi Martyrologium*, p. 71 seq.; Caveus in his *Dissertatio* and epistle against Jo. Clericus; Petrus Molindus against Perron, III, 2, etc., defend or excuse him. (g) As, for example, Christophorus Ernestus of Keula-Schwartzburg, in two dissertations on Eusebius, Wittenberg 1688, reprinted ibid. 1703. 4. FABR. Besides Chaufepié, Stolle, and Walch who were cited (and who also praise other very learned men), add L. El. du Pin, *Nouvelle bibliotheque des auteurs ecclesiastiques*, tom. II, p. 1 seqq., or according to the Latin version p. 3 seqq.; Sam. Basnage, *Annales politico-ecclesiasticae*, tom. II, p. 733; Cas. Oudin (who is engaged especially in reviewing the writings that are usually attributed to Eusebius) *Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis*, tom. I, p. 312 seqq.; R. Ceillier, *Histoire generale des auteurs ecclesiastiques*, tom. IV, p. 202; Jo. Fabricius in *Historia bibliothecae suae*, part 1, p. 89 seqq. and 198; Hamberger, *Zuverlassige Nachrichten*, tom. II, p. 705 seqq.; Jac. Brucker, *Historia critica philosophiae*, tom. III, p. 470; Saxius, *Onomasticon*, tom. I, p. 392 seq., who furthermore praised G. I. Vossius, *De scientiis mathematicis*, cap. 40, § 5, and *De historicis Graecis*, cap. 17; item Pagi's *Critica* on Baronius ad a. Chr. 318, 325, and 326. HARL.

(h) In an epistle to the Africans, tom. I, p. 721, Athanasius is said to have originally been *συντρέχων τῇ Ἀρειανῇ αἱρέσει* (running along with the Arian heresy), but afterwards, having appended his signature in the very council of Nicaea, he assured his own people that he had known some of the ancient learned men, bishops, and authors who had used the name of the *homoousion* regarding the divinity of the Father and the Son. Confer Eusebius's epistle to the Caesareans, in Socrates, lib. I, cap. 8. FABR. Eusebius seems to have been a cautious and crafty man, and although he had subscribed to the condemnation of Arius at the Nicene synod, and after long contention had admitted the word *homoousios*, yet those seem to be near the truth who judge that he was not entirely free from the suspicion of the more subtle Arianism, or, as they usually say, Semi-Arianism. Photius in the *Quaestio*, whose heresy Eusebius Pamphili belonged to, published by Montfaucon in *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, p. 348, clearly argues that Eusebius was guilty of both Arianism and Origenism: nor does Montfaucon dissent, who also in his *Animadversiones in Vitam et scripta Athanasii*, at the front of the new collection of the Holy Fathers, argues extensively concerning the Arianism of Eusebius. Add Elia di Amato, *Lettera che Eusebio di Cesarea, anco dopo il concilio Niceno, fu imbruttato dal errore Ariano*, in *Lettere erudite di Amato*, part 1, Genoa 1715, 4, letter 16, p. 291 seqq.; Latinus Latinius, *Bibliotheca auctorum sacrorum et profanorum* (Rome 1667 fol.), p. 105, who judges more harshly. Add D. Martini, professor of theology, *Dissertatio Eusebii Caesariensis de divinitate Christi sententia, ejusque tum in placitis Arianis, tum cum fide Niceno-Athanasiana comparatio*. A brief exposition of that ancient dogma is prefixed to the history. Part 1, Rostock 1795, 4. Eusebius and Pamphilus shared the labors of Origen with the Church. HARL.

^A Furthermore, having used the library of Pamphilus with great profit, the index of which he also inserted into the *Life of Pamphilus*, and another [library] which he testifies in *Hist.*, bk. VI, ch. 20, was established in the city of Aelia, or Jerusalem, by Bishop Alexander—he has preserved such distinguished monuments of all ancient history, especially ecclesiastical and other matters most worthy of knowledge—although perhaps they were not always set forth sufficiently accurately—that I consider it a singular piece of good fortune that his writings, most of which I shall now mention, have reached us and were not lost together in such a great shipwreck of good and worthless books.

II. The *Chronicle*, or *Pantodape Historia* (History of all times), as the title of the work is translated into Latin in the 35th Epistle of Augustine, from which passage it is also clear that the manuscripts of the Eusebian *Chronicle* were not even at that time universally available, was divided by the author into two books, the former of which he inscribed *Chronographia*, and the latter *Chronikos Kanon*. And this *Epitome* is what Jerome calls it. In the former, he pursued the origins and successions and memorable events of various nations from the creation of the world through various chapters, using Manetho, Apollodorus, Phlegon, Josephus, Africanus, and others; in the latter, he arranged everything in a single series related to their respective years, from the year ^B of the calling of Abraham—that is, 2017 before Christ—up to the vicennalia of Constantine the Great, A.C. 325. Others, including Eustathius of Antioch at the beginning of his *Hexaemeron*, note that Eusebius is called *hagion tis* there, just as the Gallican Church has long noted that he was held in such devotion as a martyr, as Janningus notes in his *Apology for Papebroch*, prefixed to the *Acta Sanctorum* for June, Vol. I, page XVII sq.

The Greek work of Eusebius has perished, except for the fragments and shreds which later chronologers have preserved, especially Syncellus, Cedrenus, and the writer of the *Alexandrian* or *Paschal Chronicle*, not to mention others; for, as Joseph Scaliger truly said, those who wrote after Eusebius considered any writing on times to be arid if it were not irrigated by his sources. From these, the same Scaliger gathered, edited, and illustrated with most learned notes the Greek portions as best he could, but he used not only the poorly emended transcripts of Syncellus and the *Alexandrian Chronicle*—which at that time had not yet been edited—but he also attributed various things to Eusebius which it is little credible were written by him. Jerome translated it into Latin and inscribed it to a certain Vincentius and Gallienus, such that here and there he added some things from Latin authors in particular, omitted others, and then continued the *Chronicle* to A.C. 378 (the consulships of Valens for the sixth time and Valentinian for the second). The Latin manuscripts of the Eusebian *Chronicle* vary wonderfully among themselves due to the carelessness of librarians, and very often they can neither be easily reconciled with each other nor with history. Consult Henry Dodwell's *Dissertation III on Irenaeus*.

^C Indeed, Hieronymus de Prato, in his dissertation *On the two chronological books written and edited by Eusebius of Caesarea* (Verona 1750, 8vo), set out to demonstrate that the version of the first part was not compiled by Jerome; the same man argued learnedly against Scaliger’s *Animadversions on the Chronicle of Eusebius* and against the preface of Vallarsius to the 8th volume of the works of Jerome, and promised a new edition of the remaining genuine Greek fragments. See what I have noted in the *Introduction to the History of Greek Literature*, II, 2, page 216, note. And Jerome, in his preface to his own version of Eusebius’s book *On the Situation and Names of Hebrew Places*, says that he published the Eusebian canons of times in the Latin language. Vallarsius also refutes at length the opinion of Scaliger—that Eusebius had translated almost the entire *Chronicle* of Julius Africanus into his own, and that the title of the entire Eusebian work was *Pantodape Historia*, [that] of the first book [was] *Chronographi*a, and [that] of the second [was] *Kanon*, which is why he divided his edition into two books—and he pronounces that the former Eusebian book is entirely spurious. ^D Hence he also disapproves of the judgments of our Fabricius and Schurzfleisch; then, on page xxv, he thinks that the *Epitome* is nothing other than what is contained in the preceding enumeration of the *Chronicle*, and is called by Jerome a certain matter for a future work. But see more in Vallarsius, especially in Pontacus, who felt differently about certain matters, in his *Apparatus*, etc., at the beginning, and who discusses the force and power of the word *Kanon*, and the controversy over the *Chronicle* of Eusebius and Jerome itself, and the *Epitome*, etc., and concludes that the title "Eusebius’s *Chronicle*" comprises both the history of the chronological canons and the *Epitome* of the same, that is, a compendium of both the history and the canons themselves. Most of all, one should consult L. T. Spittler’s *Critical History of the Eusebian Chronicle* in the *Commentaries of the Royal Society of Sciences of Göttingen*, vol. VIII, Göttingen, 1787, no. 3. Class. hist. He defends Prato’s opinion and lists the authors whom Eusebius followed. HARL.

^A Henri de Valois, page 10, in his notes to Eusebius’ *History*, praises the most ancient copy belonging to Acutianus, and those of Lipsius and Ortelius. He also praises the most ancient edition of Milan, which neither Pontacus nor Scaliger had seen. Arnold Pontacus, bishop of Bazas, however, consulted—besides twenty-eight manuscripts—eight editions, and from them compiled his own famous work; and Scaliger, in Epistola 104, page 372 et seq., and elsewhere, did not hesitate to praise it on all counts, celebrating the learning, candor, modesty, and industry of the editor. And it is called the most correct of all by Jean Morin, page 277 of his *Exercitationes biblicae*. It appeared, illustrated by the notes and corrections of Pontacus, together with the *Chronicle* of Prosper, at Bordeaux in 1604, in folio; but it is rarely found today. Nor is that other work of Aubertus Miraeus to be found everywhere; it exhibits only the latter part of the history, from the birth of Christ, and has added to it the *Chronicles* of Sigebert and Anselm of Gembloux, Antwerp, 1608, 4. Confer Ittigius, *De bibliothecis Patrum*, p. 743. Fabr.

Fabricius in a note named certain editions, but it is useful to substitute a fuller catalog of them. Pontacus also, towards the end of his *Apparatus*, reviewed the manuscripts which he used, and many editions. ^B The *editio princeps*, which is also kept in the library of the Academy of Erlangen, is without a title, without the year and place of publication, and without lines or transverse marks, in quarto. On the other side of the first folio are three epigrams by the editor, Boninus Mombritius, from the first of which the work is identified as one containing the *Chronicle* of Eusebius, translated into Latin by St. Jerome, and continued by him and Prosper of Aquitaine and Matthew Palmerius; it was printed by Philippus Lavanius (at Milan, circa 1475). For more on this edition, see Hamberger, *Zuverlässige Nachrichten*, II, p. 70; Clement, *Bibliothèque*, VIII, p. 170 et seq., and those I have cited in the *Introduction*, l. c., page 218. Add Panzer, A. T. II, page 94.

Eusebius’ *Chronicle*, translated into Latin by Jerome, continued by him and by Prosper and Matthew Palmerius, from edition 1, with the supplement of Matthew Palmerius. At the end, in red, "Joannes Lucilius Hippodamus (or Santritter) of Heilbronn, greets the reader" (there follows an epigram consisting of three elegiac couplets). Erhard Ratdolt, of Augsburg, having gathered copies from everywhere, printed the chronological books of Eusebius and the remaining additions on the times in this volume at Venice, in the year of salvation 1483, on the Ides of September. It is among the first books which, in words and numbers— ^C Eusebius’ *Chronicle*, which Jerome took care to render into Latin and added to Roman eloquence up to Valens Caesar. To which Prosper and Matthew Palmerius, and finally Joannes Multivallis, added many things which have followed up to these times. Henri Estienne. At the end: "Completed in the nurturing city of Paris, by Henri Estienne, with the greatest care and diligence of the same, and at the expense of Jodocus Badius, 1512, 4." Concerning this rare edition, I have written more in the *Introduction*, l. c., page 218 et seq., and in Clement, l. c., page 172 note; who, besides these, lists therein many others, and the edition of Estienne reprinted and only differing in a few points, Paris, 1518, 4. The same man, and Freytag in *Apparatus litterarius* III, page 575, refer to the Basel edition (which is also in my possession), derived and increased from the editions of Estienne, and inscribed: "We offer the *Chronicle*, a work plainly divine and most scholarly, from the authors, repeated from the very beginning of the world to the year of salvation 1511 ^D Eusebius Pamphili of Caesarea, interpreted by D. Jerome, with the additions of Jerome the presbyter, Prosper of Aquitaine, M. Aurelius Cassiodorus, Patrician of Rome, Hermannus Contractus, Count of Veringen, Matthew Palmerius of Florence, and Matthias Palmerius of Pisa; partly now found and edited by us, and partly, from the errors by which it suffered—more than anyone would easily believe—repurgated with the greatest care and diligence. Basel, printed by Henricus Petrus, in the month of March, 1529, in folio, under the care and with a preface by Jo. Sichard."

Other editions, with other writings of Eusebius and with the *Chronicle* of Prosper and Matthew Palmerius, are enumerated by Pontacus (who made the Basel 1529 edition the basis of his own) in his *Apparatus*, towards the end; by Justus Fontaninus in his *Historia litteraria Aquileiensis* (Rome, 1742, 4), page 3; and by Clement, l. c., namely, the edition at Basel, reprinted by Henr. Petrus in 1536, 1542, 1549, 1559, 1570, in folio; Paris, by Michel Sonnius, 1587, in folio, among the Nervii in the monastery. Regarding both editions of the Scaligerian *Thesaurus*, see the same Clement, page 176 et seq.

^A Moreover, on account of its outstanding additions and most learned notes, the edition of Scaliger (a) is very frequently in the hands of the learned, especially the second and posthumous Amsterdam edition of 1658, in folio, which includes a preface by Alexander Morus and Scaliger's commentaries on the Latin interpretation of Jerome and the Greek text of Eusebius, corrected and enlarged by a third part (which the prior edition of Leiden, 1606, in folio, exhibits, and which has appended to it the three books of Scaliger’s own *Isagogicorum Chronologia Canones*). Subjoined to the Eusebian Chronicle are: the supplement of Jerome, which I mentioned, and that of Prosper Tiro (b) from the year of Christ 379, where Jerome left off, to the year 444; the Chronicle of Victor Tunnunensis from the year 445 to the year 565; that of John, Abbot of Biclar, from the year 565 down to the eighth year of Maurice, A.C. 593; that of Idatius from the year 379, where Jerome ends, to 428; that of Marcellinus Comes from A.C. 379 to the year 534; and the Latin chronological excerpts from Africanus, Eusebius, and others, by an ancient writer or anonymous interpreter, published from the manuscript of the Puteana library. After these follow in Greek the texts which Scaliger collected and arranged as Eusebian: an anonymous *Epitome of Chronicles* (c) (commonly known by the name of the *Chronicon Alexandrinum* or *Fasti Siculi*), from Adam to the twentieth year of Heraclius, A.C. 629, from the manuscript of Isaac Casaubon; and the *Chronography* of Nicephorus, Patriarch of Constantinople. Finally, there follows the *Collection of Histories* ^B and the *List of Olympiads*, not by an ancient writer, but, as correctly observed by learned men, compiled and arranged even by Scaliger himself, who collected this from published and unpublished writers, also Latin ones, whose passages he translated into Greek and inserted into these collections. FABR.

Vallarsi repeated the Chronicle of Eusebius, revised with new care and illustrated by his own observations and those of others, in his edition of the Works of St. Jerome, volume VIII, Verona 1740, in folio (which edition was reprinted, augmented by the later care of Vallarsi, Venice 1766–1782, in 4 volumes).

The Chronicle of Eusebius, rendered into Latin by St. Jerome and carried down to his own times, with the addition also of the continuation of Prosper Aquitanus. Now for the first time added to the collection of the Works of Jerome, with genuine Greek fragments restored from George Syncellus, the *Chronicon Paschale*, Cedrenus, and other authors, and, after the revisions and care of Arnold Pontanus, Joseph Scaliger, and Claudius Salmasius, and others, again corrected by the manuscripts and illustrated with clearer and continuous notes, by the work and study of Dominicus Vallarsius (in volume II he added the complete Commentaries of Pontanus, and in the Prolegomena of volume I he discourses diligently concerning the editions).

He disputes against Scaliger often here, both in the preface and in the notes. But although he performed excellently regarding the Eusebian-Hieronymian Chronicle, yet—which in such a work and task is neither to be wondered at nor blamed—he did not perfect everything. Hence, Jerome de Prato, in the work cited above, page 423, gave certain Greek fragments of Eusebius from his first book *On Times* (excerpted long ago by ^C George Syncellus), adding a new interpretation, notes, and observations. Beyond these, he observed that while the work was indeed rightly praised by many learned men; nevertheless, Rupert, in his *Observations on the Minor Synopsis*, page 378, noted that Scaliger, in his old age, relying on his memory and not consulting books for a long time, used his pen [hastily], and thus even in the Eusebian work committed many hallucinations. Much more sharply did Jerome de Prato judge, in his *Dissertation on the Chronical Books* mentioned above, page 359, concerning this work and the arrogance of Scaliger, whom he declares has deserved very poorly of Eusebius, and to whom he has imputed many foreign and spurious offspring. Clement excerpted a long and grave censure *l. c.*, p. 180 et seq., where, from page 176, he copiously reviewed both the prior and posterior editions of the Scaligerian work, and noted the error of Jo. Henr. Hottinger, who, in his *Bibliothecarius Quadripartitus*, p. 315, confused Scaliger’s work *De emendatione temporum* (Paris 1583, Leiden 1598, and, from the author's own manuscript, more correctly and with a great accession enlarged, etc., Cologne 1629, in folio) with his *Thesaurus temporum*, the second edition of which is inscribed: *Thesaurus temporum. Second edition, in which the notes and castigations of the same Joseph Scaliger ... are about a third part larger ... with the supreme care of the author corrected, etc. Amsterdam, for Jo. Jansson, 1658, in folio.* Clement, page 179, noted from the preface of Alex. Morus certain things which pertain to the history of this enlarged edition. HARL.

^A by Suidas, and especially by Scaliger (though conversely noted by others), and by other more recent chronologists.

EUSEBIUS’ PREPARATION FOR THE GOSPEL

*Preparation for the Gospel* (b), in fifteen books: or a most beautiful collection of various arguments and most worthy testimonies and monuments from external writers (a great part of which are lost today), by which the mind of the reader is prepared to imbibe and accept with so much more ease, from the Holy Scriptures, the demonstrations concerning the truth of the Gospel of Christ. George of Trebizond translated it into Latin and dedicated it to Pope Nicholas V; but Allatius, in *De Georgiis*, p. 375, and Petavius, in book XIV, 11, *De incarnatione*, § 2, rightly complain that his interpretation is very defective and confused: by his Latin version, Trebizond did not so much bring light to Eusebius as, by foully mangling, adding to, and depraving him, he left a justified complaint of himself for posterity (c). Compare Vossius, *De hist. Graecis*, p. 70; Huet, *De claris interpretibus*, p. 292; and Jo. Rainolds, *Censura apocryphorum librorum*, vol. I, p. 803. The Latin version by Trebizond appeared at Treviso in 1480, in folio. [Fabricius himself, in his *Delectus*, etc., l. c., Maittaire, and especially the editors of the 15th century, have enumerated and reviewed them more carefully and fully; see Panzer (who is accustomed to cite other bibliographers) in *A.T. Add.* regarding what I have observed in *Introd. in Hist. L. Gr.*, l. c., pp. 219 sqq., not. I shall therefore indicate in few words the editions of the version made by Trebizond: Venice, by the types of Nicol. Jenson, 1470, folio (Fabricius, in his *Delectus*, etc., repeated the octostichon prefixed by Antonio Cornazzani more accurately than Maittaire had copied it in *A. T. I*, p. 67); (ibid.) by Leon. Aurl (whom the distinguished Panzer, III, p. 98, opines was the corrector or editor, and that the Roman character is the same with which Adam de Ambergau printed Cicero's orations in 1472), s.l., 1473, folio. Add. the distinguished Morell to *Cat. bibl. Pinell. I*.]

(a) Cardinal Angelo Mai provided a double edition of the Eusebian Chronicle. Regarding the first, which appeared at Milan in 1818, this title is prefixed: *Eusebii Pamphili Chronicorum Canonum libri duo*, a work carefully expressed and corrected from the Haican codex by Doctor Joannes Zohrabus, alumnus of the Armenian College at Venice; Angelus Maius and Joannes Zohrabus now for the first time, by combined efforts, rendered it into Latin, illustrated it with notes, and added the Greek remains, published at Milan, with royal types. Contained in the same volume is: *Samuelis presbyteri Aniensis temporum usque ad suam aetatem ratio*. At the end it reads: "These very useful doctrines of time of Eusebius of Caesarea and Samuel of Ani were completed by the very swift labor of the editors, at the urgent request of the vote of all the learned, in the nourishing and most learned city of Milan, in the year after the beneficent advent of Christ M.D.CCC.XVIII. Good readers, favor us." Cardinal Mai caused this edition to be returned to the presses, revised by later labors, in the *Nova Collectio scriptorum veterum e Vaticanis codicibus edita*, vol. VIII, Rome, M.D.CCC.XXXIII, in 4°. The Armenian version, in which not only do the thoughts respond to the thoughts, but very often the words to the words, was compiled in the fifth century of the Church, and exhibits both parts of the Chronicle, with the exception only of the last section of the first part. It is magnificently edited by J. B. Aucher under the title: *Eusebii Chronicon bipartitum, Arm. et Lat.* (with Greek fragments added in their place), Venice, 1818. II parts, in 4°. EDIT. PATR.

(b) Eusebius himself, VI, 10, *Praeparat.*, pag. 280, "τὴν δὴ καὶ μάλιστα ἡμῖν δεῖ εἰς τὴν τῆς Εὐαγγελικῆς ἀποδείξεως προπαρασκευήν." Add book XV, cap. 1, where, after having explained the anacephalaeosis of these books, he says that he is now proceeding to the demonstration of the Gospel as a more noble argument: "Τοῦτο δὴ οὖν σὺν Θεῷ διὰ τῆς ἀληθείας ἡμῖν ἐπισφραγισθέντος, τὰ μὲν τῆς προπαρασκευῆς ἐνταῦθά μοι περιγραφήσεται. Μεταβὰς δὲ ἐπὶ τὴν ἐντελεστέραν ὑπόθεσιν τῆς Εὐαγγελικῆς ἀποδείξεως, etc." Jerome also mentions the fifteen books of *Evangelical Preparation* and offers a place from book eight into the ninth of Daniel. FABRIC. – Conf. Du Pin, *Eccles. auctorum bibl. nov.*, II, p. 10, and our Fabricius in *Delectus argumentor. et syllabo scriptor. pro veritate relig. Christianae*, pp. 72 sqq., where he repeated this place of B. Gr. and amplified it, especially with a fuller notice of the editions. HARL.

(c) Trebizond, however, in his epistle to Nicholas V, professes that by his command, having cut away the brambles (i.e., having omitted those things which, to be sure, might seem to him to reek of heresy), he offered only the roses to the Latin people by this translation. HARL.

^A a ninth book of the *Preparation*, from which many things might be restored in printed editions that are depraved. Thomas Gale also possessed these books, corrected from ancient parchments (c). Eusebius briefly sets forth the plan of the work and the subject matter of each of the fifteen books in chapter 1, having testified, as I said, that from there he would proceed to the more perfect subject of the *Evangelical Demonstration*, to a more august argument. Add Fabricius, in *Delectus*, etc., p. 74, by whose testimony Richard Simon, tom. I *Bibl. selectae*, p. 36, notes that a manuscript codex (though of only five books) exists in the royal library of Paris, differing here and there from the printed editions, and worthy to be compared. In the public library of Paris there are, according to the *Catal. codd.*, tom. II, ^B some Greek codices: codex CDLI, which Richard Simon seems to have had in his hands. It contains the first five books. In codices CDLXV–CDLXVIII there are fifteen books. Regarding the codices of the Florentine library, codices VI and IX, plut. 6, Bandini describes them copiously, especially the former, in *Cat. codd. Gr.* I, p. 102–105, and p. 114. Indeed, they contain all fifteen books. At Venice in the library of St. Mark there are three codices, CCCXLI–CCCXLIII. See *Catal. codd. Gr.*, p. 157. At Naples in the library of S. Giovanni di Carbonara of the Augustinians, codex XXI. Ibid., in the royal library, codex CCXX. At Fiesole in the library of the monastery of the Canons, *Eus. Praep. evang.*, translated by G. Trapezuntius. (Montfaucon, *Diar. Ital.*, p. 392.) At Vienna in the Imperial library, codex XI, n. 6, and codex XIV, n. 4, contain many excerpts from Eusebius’ *De praep. evang.*, ^C which items individually Lambecius recounts in *Cat. codd.*, vol. VIII, p. 73 seq., and p. 80 seq. The same, ibid., p. 50, amends and illustrates a passage from *Praepar. evangel.*, book V, ch. 27 and 28. Eusebius’ testimony concerning the distinction between the Law and the precepts is in *cod. August. Vindel.*, by the testimony of Reiserus in *Cat.*, p. 39. At Oxford in the college of Corpus Christi, c. MDCCXX, fragments of Eusebius’ *De praepar. evan.*, in Latin. In the college of St. John the Baptist, codex MDCCLXXXII, *De praepar. evang.*, in Greek. Among the Vossian codices, n. MMCCLII (*Cat. codd. Angliae*, tom. II, p. 61, and *cat. bibl. Leid.*, p. 598, n. 55) are excerpts from Eusebius’ *Praeparat. evang.* At Rome in the Ottobonian library, twice, *De praep. evangel.* (Montfaucon *Bibl. bibliothecar. mss.* I, p. 184 A.) At Naples in the library of Lord Valetta (id. ib., p. 231 A.) — in the library of the monastery of S. Severino, twice (id. ib., p. 235 A. D.). At Florence in the Dominican library, the Latin version of G. Trapezuntius (id. ib., p. 421 C.). At Bologna in the library of the Canons Regular (id. ib., p. 432 A.). At Cesena ^D in the library of the Friars Minor (id. ib., p. 453 C.). Ibid. — to have perceived the changes which are found in the Sonnius edition, as being for the most part taken from the codex of the monastery of St. Victor, in the suburbs of Paris, although not sufficiently successfully everywhere. The same Pontacus, p. 21, observes that the Basil edition of 1549 corresponds in almost every respect to the edition of 1529. HARL.

^A Jerome mentions the 18th in his Preface to Hosea, testifying that Eusebius had discussed certain matters concerning Hosea in that book. Another work of Eusebius was *On the General Elementary Introduction*, consisting of several books, of which the sixth, seventh, eighth, and ninth still exist in manuscript under the title *Prophetic Eclogues concerning Christ in four books*. For Lambecius (lib. I, p. 139 seq.; lib. III, p. 75) testifies that these books survive in the Vienna Library (e). From the same Lambecius I shall append these words from the fourth book of the *Prophetic Eclogues*: "But although in the four, and having outlined the subject of the selections in the ninth book of the *General Elementary Introduction* in this treatise, in the tenth we shall endeavor to provide another appropriate approach for those whose reason is corrupted by the impious heresies." ^B Mention of this work is found in Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical History*, lib. I, cap. 2 (f), where he distinguishes that work from the *Evangelical Demonstration*: "But since in our own commentaries we have gathered together the *Prophetic Eclogues* concerning our Savior Jesus Christ, and have established more demonstratively in *others* the things declared concerning Him, we shall be content for the present with what has been said." Blondel, in his book *On Bishops*, p. 47, says that Eusebius cites his own *History* in the *Demonstration*, but lib. VI, cap. 13, p. 273, refers indeed to his own history, that is, to the account and ^C experience, he appeals; but *Ecclesiastical History*...

*Evangelical Demonstration*. Of the *Evangelical Demonstration* in twenty books, the first (a) (which is mutilated at the beginning) up to the tenth, which is likewise truncated in its final part (b). The manuscript codices of this work, in which he most strongly upholds the truth of the Christian religion from the Holy Scriptures and the Old Testament, and collects and interprets prophecies concerning Christ, are very rare, and in the judgment of Montfaucon (c) they all seem to have been transcribed from an ancient parchment codex which exists in the French royal library (d): for all are mutilated in the same way at the front, and begin from the same word, and end at the same point. Jerome mentions twenty books, c. 81 of the *Catalogus*, and Photius, cod. X. ^D The book...

(a) Eusebius clearly expounds the argument of the first book in *Preparatio*, XV, 1, p. 790, and in the last chapter, p. 856, which agrees with that which is the first in modern codices. And it is evident from the very beginnings of the books, in which the number of each book is also repeatedly expressed, that the remaining nine were so joined and connected by the author.

(b) Our Fabricius, from a more complete codex in the library of the Prince of Wallachia, Maurocordatus, supplied the huge deficiency of the first book, and appended the end of the tenth, where very little was missing, in the forefront of *Dilectus argumentum et syllabi scriptorum de veritate religionis Christianae*, pp. 1-22, and from page 74 onwards he repeated what he had written in *B. Gr.*, and moreover noted, in the judgment of Tillemont, vol. VII, *Memor. H. E.*, pp. 53 sq., that this work was begun before the end of the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 312), and continued after that time, when peace was restored to the Christian assembly (A.D. 325) (cf. Kollar on Lambecius, *Comment.* I, p. 261 sq.). As for the passages which seem to favor the Arians, Jac. Billius noted them in lib. I, *Obss. S.*, c. 27, and corrected and illustrated several others in c. 28. HARL.

(c) Montfaucon, *Diar. Italic.*, pp. 12, 42, and in *Bibl. bibliothecar. mss.*, vol. I, p. 527 E, where he mentions an imperfect 15th-century codex of the *Evangelical Demonstration* in the Ambrosian Library in Milan. There is also a Greek codex at Oxford in the library of St. John the Baptist College. See *Cat. codd. Angl. et Hib.*, II, p. 60, n. 1781. HARL.

(d) In the public library at Paris there are (according to Cat. II, pp. 65 sqq.) five codices of the *Evangelical Demonstration*, the first of which was written in the 12th century, three in the 16th century, and the fifth by the hand of Valerianus of Forli, at Venice in 1543. HARL.

(e) Page 252 sqq. of the first book edited by Kollar, where Lambecius, after he had given the sum of the books and had excerpted many things, p. 256 sq., demonstrates that Eusebius was the parent of those *Eclogues*; which judgment is corroborated both by Lambecius and in the supplement, in a note brought in by Kollar, p. 257 sqq., and in vol. III, p. 202, where those four books of *Eclogues* exist again in codex LV; and by Kollar, p. 203 sqq., concerning the codex, which he teaches is not so defective from the beginning, and he asserts, arguing copiously and learnedly, that Eusebius was the author of those books, using more and stronger arguments. The same Kollar, on vol. I, p. 257, notes that in his letter to scholars concerning the second edition of the *Commentaries*, written at Vienna in 1760, he had already attributed those *Eclogues* to Eusebius with more serious arguments, and on vol. III, p. 203, he refutes Oudin (*Commentarius de scriptoribus*, vol. I, col. 314) and other more recent scholars (see J. Christoph. Mylius, *Bibliotheca anonymorum et pseudonymorum*, part 1, pp. 30 and 38) to whom that work seemed suspect, and to have been substituted for Eusebius by others. Those observations and truly contentions of Lambecius and Kollar are to be read and weighed, especially by the future editor of those *Eclogues* (1). The same Lambecius, vol. VIII, pp. 12 sq., pursues two passages of Eusebius, *H. E.* lib. I, cap. 11, and *Demonstratio evangelica*, pp. 124 sq., in which he commemorates the testimony of Josephus concerning Christ, recounts it rather fully, compares it with other writers and corrects it, and vindicates Eusebius from all fraud, and finally follows that testimony and the history of the time up to page 86 (where Kollar's note is not to be neglected). HARL. Concerning the *Prophetic Eclogues* of Eusebius, see especially Munter, *Fragm. Patr. Græc.*, part 1, p. 56 sq.

(f) Regarding this passage see Lambecius and Kollar, vol. I, *Comment. de bibl. Cæsar.*, p. 257.

(1) *Eusebius' Prophetic Eclogues* and a Greek codex in the Imperial Library in Vienna. Now first published in Greek by Th. Gaisford, Oxford 1842, 8vo. The five books *On the appearance of the Lord in the flesh* (S. Jerome, *De scriptor. eccles.*, c. 81) seem not to have been unlike this work, which presented, as one may conjecture from fragments recently brought to light, the history of Christ the Lord compiled from prophecies and the Gospels with a most abundant exposition of evangelical doctrine. A. Mai published several fragments of this work in Greek in *Collect. Nova Veterum Script.*, vol. 1 (Rome 1831) p. 1, pp. 113–142. Cf. his *Prolegomena*, n. 7 (p. x-). EDIT. – Cf. FESSLER, *Institut. Patrol.*, 1, 552.

^A experientiam, but he makes no mention of the Ecclesiastical History written by himself. The words are: "If, then, our history is of any value, we have witnessed with our eyes Zion, once celebrated, being plowed with yokes of oxen by Roman men." He promises that he will make a fuller examination of the prophetic passages concerning the calling of the gentiles in his second book of the *Demonstratio*, p. 53, which it is not the time at present to repeat or interpret, p. 48. That examination, just like the last ten books of the *Demonstratio*, has perished. And I doubt whether there exist any copies different from those edited in the Vatican library, although you may read in Scaliger: "There are in the Vatican the last ten books of Eusebius' *Demonstratiοns*, but the Italians are so jealous that they would not want to lend them."

Bernardino Donato of Verona translated it into Latin and dedicated his interpretation to Pope Paul III. His version came out at Venice (a) first, then Cologne 1542, fol., and with other works of Eusebius at Basel 1542, 1549, 1559, and 1570, fol., with the addition of the commentaries of J. Jac. Grynaeus; and at Paris 1587, fol. (b). Jacobus Billius corrects some things in his version in his *Sacred Observations*; and Georgius Calixtus, § 54 of his *Dissertation that the Son of God did not appear to the Fathers of the O.T. in His own hypostasis*, notes that Donato interpreted most of the things said by Eusebius about Christ too harshly and loosely, so as to soften them. And Possevinus in his *Apparatus Sacer* warns that for a similar reason he omitted certain things.

Robert Estienne first published the Greek with clear royal type from a royal codex at Paris, 1545, fol. ^B The Greek and Latin together with Donato's version, and with various readings and brief corrections, appeared at Paris 1628, fol., with the addition of Eusebius' book *Against Hierocles*, two books *Against Marcellus of Ancyra*, and three *On Ecclesiastical Theology*. This edition was repeated at Cologne (or rather Leipzig) 1688, fol. Concerning the Greek editions of the *Demonstratio Evangelica*, see Goetz's *Memorabilia bibliothecae Dresdensis*, II, p. 284 sqq. (where the discussion also concerns Donato of Verona); Clement, *l. c.*, p. 191 sq., note, and J. Fabricius in *Histor. bibl. Fabricianae*, I, p. 91 sqq. Harl. He published the excerpts from the *Praeparatio evangelica* and the *Demonstratio evangelica* in the vernacular with notes; Roessler, *Bibl. PP.*, vol. V, p. 203 sq.

III. Ecclesiastical History.

Jerome (f) intended to translate it into Latin, as he was about to write an ecclesiastical history, and he even repeated almost everything from Eusebius in his book *On Ecclesiastical Writers*, though he translated somewhat freely and not always accurately enough. Rufinus translated Eusebius' *History*, but in such a way that he omitted various things here and there and nearly the whole of the tenth book (g), and added other things and interpolated, and he himself appended two new books (h), extending the thread of history down to the death of Theodosius the Great, but with accounts that are uncertain, full of deficiencies, and little credible, not at all corresponding to the judgment and trustworthiness of Eusebius. Rufinus' version is dedicated to Chromatius, bishop of Aquileia, and is already praised by Augustine in his book *On Care for the Dead*, ch. 6, which light.

A third version of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, together with that of Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Evagrius, by the author John Christophorson, bishop of Chichester, appeared at Louvain in 1570 (d), and at Cologne in 1570 and 1581, with annotations by Suffridus Petrus, in folio, and at Paris in 1571, in folio (e). Although Montacute (tom. I *Orig.*, p. 264) calls it the most Latin of all, many have already observed that in many places it renders Eusebius unhappily and has provided Baronius with an opportunity for error in various places; their judgments have been collected by Martin Kempius in *Bibliotheca theologica*, p. 509 sq., and Thomas Ittigius, preface to *Ecclesiastical History of the 11th Century*, p. 3 ff. See also D. Dorschei, *Diatyposis of the Nicene Council*, p. 4. Christophorson transferred the book *On the Martyrs of Palestine* into the eighth book of the History. ^B A fourth version, by Meredith Hanmer—the one who published the *Chronicle of Ireland*—I have not seen, nor do I think it was ever published. A fifth, by Henry Valesius, appeared at Paris in 1678, in folio, omitting the Greek of Eusebius. FABRICIUS. *The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius Pamphili in nine books, with Rufinus of Aquileia as interpreter, and two books of Rufinus himself. The work distributed into two parts, one of Eusebius, one of Constantine…*

^A Panegyric, received light from the remarkable industry of that most learned man, Henri de Valois, ^B who collated the Greek text against two manuscripts of the royal library, which Robert Estienne had used, and a third, most excellent one, from the Mazarin library, which was here and there illustrated with Greek scholia that Valois for the most part inserted into his notes, and a fourth from Nicolas Foucault, then various readings from the codices of Turnebus, Vulcobius, and Savile: then he added a new and more accurate [(a)] version and learned notes that deserve to be read by all students of ecclesiastical history; finally, in addition to his dissertation on the life and writings of Eusebius, and the testimonies of the ancients concerning Eusebius on both sides, he prefaced a letter written to him by Pierre de Marca concerning the origins of Christianity in Gaul, concerning which subject one may also consult Andreas Saussaye, *De mysticis Galliæ scriptoribus*, pp. 279 sqq. and 300 sqq., and the author of the new dissertation *De tempore introducta in Galliam Christianæ religionis* (concerning which see the *Ephemerides Parisienses* a. 1705, p. 1071), especially Jean Launoy in his *Dispunctio* of the letter of Pierre de Marca. Valois appended these four dissertations to his notes: 1. On the schism of the Donatists up to the year 325; 2. On the fact that only one temple, not two, was built by Constantine in Jerusalem; 3. To James Ussher, against his opinion concerning the lost version of the LXX Translators and the Hexapla of Origen; 4. On the Martyrology which Rosweyd published, and which he falsely boasted was the ancient genuine Roman Martyrology. The Eusebius of Valois appeared in Greek and Latin at Paris, very neatly, in 1659, folio, with Antonius Vitré, and from Valois's own manuscript, with a few things changed in the translation and several more added—which are enclosed in brackets in the animadversions from Valois’s second edition—with Pierre Le Petit, Paris, 1677, folio. Thence it was reprinted from the former edition at Mainz, as the title bears, or rather Frankfurt in 1672, folio, and from the latter Parisian edition, Amsterdam 1695, folio, by the Frankfurt printers the Wusts. The pagination of Eusebius, which is greatly to be lamented, does not correspond in this latter edition [(b)]. Valois died in Paris on the Nones of May, 1676, and his life, written by his brother Adrien, addressed to Louis Nublé, was reprinted after the Parisian edition at Leipzig 1680, 8vo, under the care of that most noble man Friedrich Benedikt Carpzov, and included in the *Vitae selectorum aliquot virorum*, collected by William Bates and published in London 1681 and 1704, 4to, p. 719, and before the Eusebius of the Valois edition, Amsterdam 1695, folio. FABR.

The complete edition of Valois was reprinted at Cambridge with such care and fidelity that even the printers’ errors were acknowledged to the readers, not to mention the pardon granted for whatever minor hallucinations.

[(b)] Cf. the more abundant review of J. Fabricius in *Bibl. Fabric.*, vol. II, p. 396 sqq., who notes that that edition was not reprinted at Amsterdam in 1695, but that that title was created by fraud, since it is the very same Frankfurt edition, and he offers the judgments of others concerning Eusebius and his writings and Valois’s edition. It was reprinted, or received a new title, Paris 1746. HARL.

^A Reading’s merits, which were not so significant in the critical part, Stroth dared to surpass in a new edition and revision, of which, however, only the first volume has seen the light: Eusebius Pamphili’s *Ecclesiastical History*, in ten books. The same author’s *Life of Constantine*, in five books. Friedrich Andreas Stroth reviewed the text by the faith of the manuscripts and editions, and added notes that were for the most part critical. Vol. I. Halle, 1779, 8vo, in Greek. He collated various editions, both Greek and Latin, and collected those things which had previously been dispersed, calling to his aid Rufinus, Nicephorus, and others. Through this diligence, he brought about a better form and constitution of the text. In a long preface, he compiled a critical history of the manuscripts—both of Eusebius and Rufinus—and of many other supporting writings, as well as of the editions. For this reason, we may be the briefer concerning the Latin manuscripts of Rufinus, principally. In the public library of Paris, ^B there is book I in codex CDXIV; in eight codices, MCDXXX–MCDXXXVII, there are the ten books, sometimes not complete; but the compiler of the catalog, vol. II, p. 317, notes that, with the help of codex MCDXXXI, which was seen neither by Valois nor by others, a much more corrected edition of that work could be produced; however, chapters 15 and 16 of the seventh book are missing. Add Montfaucon, *Palæographia Græca*, p. 46 and 65. — In codex Coislin. 305, fol. 149, there is a passage of Eusebius *De Therapeutis* of seven or eight pages. (Montfaucon, *Bibl. Coist.*, p. 421). — In Great Britain, according to the catalog of manuscripts, in the Barrocian codex n. DIIC, a fragment from the *Ecclesiastical History* and Eusebius’s sentences, among the Bodleian library codices DCCLXIII and MCCCXIX, among the Laud codices, the *Ecclesiastical History* from the version of Rufinus. N. MMCCLXXVIII, the *Ecclesiastical History* in Greek. N. MMCDVIII, a synopsis of the *Ecclesiastical History*. N. MMMMMMCDXV, 11 books (sic) of the *Ecclesiastical History*, but in Latin, I believe. — Oxford, in the library of Balliol College, N. CCVC, Latin. — In the library of Merton College, N. DXCIV, the *Ecclesiastical History*, book 11, Latin. — In the library of Oriel College, the *Ecclesiastical History*, Latin, with the additions of Rufinus and with his translation. — In the library of Magdalen College, MMCCCLI, Latin. — Cambridge, N. MCCLXXIX, the *Ecclesiastical History*. They call it "the experts’." — In the college of St. Benedict, N. MDCXXVIII, 11 books of Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*. The title in the old script: *Ecclesiastical History by Richard the Monk*. N. MMCDXXXI, the *Ecclesiastical History*, Latin. In vol. II of the catalog in the library of the church of Worcester, Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*, 9 books, translated by Rufinus, together with 11 books added by him afterward. — In the library of the church of Salisbury, n. MI, the *Ecclesiastical History*, the version of Rufinus, perhaps the same as n. MXXII. — In the Norfolk library, N. MMMCDVL, the *Ecclesiastical History* in Greek. — Among the codices of Charles Theyer, N. MMMMMMDLXXXIX, *History*, book 11, Latin. — In the library of St. James, n. MMMMMMMDCDXVII, Latin. — In the Royal Library at Madrid is a codex described by Vincentius Mariner of Valencia, from a very ancient Escorial codex which perhaps was consumed by fire and no longer exists; in it are two distinguished fragments from Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*, the first, *On the martyrs who were martyred in Caesarea under Diocletian and Maximian*, which is already printed in the edition of Eusebius; the second, *On the holy martyrs who competed at different times in different cities*, which, because it had not yet been edited, Iriarte first published in Greek in his *Catalog of Greek Manuscripts at Madrid*, p. 548-552. — In the Leiden library, the *Ecclesiastical History* in Latin see the catalog, p. 339, n. 1. — In Turin, in the royal library among the Latin codices, the version of Rufinus in codices DLIX, DLX, and DLXXV. — In Florence, in the Laurentian Medicean library, an ancient codex, VII, plut. 70, concerning which Bandini has not yet been much involved in his *Catalog of Greek Manuscripts*, II, p. 666 sq. — Ibid., codex XXI, n. 4, plut. 70, concerning which memorable codex, which has part of the book *On the martyrs who suffered in Palestine* in book 8 of the *Ecclesiastical History*, and part subjected to book 10 and other things, see Bandini, *loc. cit.*, p. 684. — In Venice, in the library of St. Mark, the *Ecclesiastical History*, book 10, in Greek, in three codices, CCCXXXVII–CCCXXXIX; see the *Catalog of Greek Manuscripts*, p. 156 sq., and in three Latin codices, CCCXLV–CCCXLVII, the *Ecclesiastical History* translated by Rufinus; see *Catalog of Latin Manuscripts*, p. 146 sq. — Ibid., in the codex of Macarius Rodonias are excerpts from Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*, according to Villoison in *Anecdota Graeca*, vol. II, p. 71. — In Vienna, in the Imperial Library, codex XIII in the catena on St. Luke contains a long passage concerning the birth of Christ from Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical History*, book 1, chapters 6 and 7, the reading of which in that codex differs greatly from the published editions, as Lambeck observed in his *Commentaries*, vol. III, p. 165 ff. Certain excerpts from the *Ecclesiastical History* in codex

^A CCCXXXII, n. 12 (Lambeck V, p. 614 sq.; Montfaucon in *Bibl. bibliothec. mss.*), produce an almost infinite number of manuscripts, which, since they are immediately at hand in the Vatican Library and elsewhere—both Greek and especially Latin—it should suffice to have indicated, lest I become overly verbose. HARL.

In German, the *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius and Rufinus and the *Tripartite History*, with a continuation up to the year 1545, were edited by Caspar Hedion, Strasbourg, by J. Herwagen, 1545, fol. FABR. Likewise, Frankfurt am Main, 1582, fol. Enlarged with Part IV and a continuation from the year 1545 up to the year 1607, Basel, by Sebastian Henric-Petri, fol. *Eusebii Kirchengeschichte, aus dem Griech. Und mit Anmerkungen erläutert von Frid. Andr. Stroth.*, Quedlinburg, 1777, 8, 11 vols. HARL. Excerpts in Roessler's *Bibl. PP.*, vol. IV, p. 1 sqq.

In Dutch, published at Dordrecht, 1613, fol. FABR. Translated from the Greek into Dutch and illustrated with notes by Abr. Arent van de Meersch, Amsterdam, 1749, 4. V. Krohn, *Catal. bibl. suae*, p. 90. HARL.

In English, the ten books of Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical History*, translated and abridged by Samuel Parker, which I learned of from the *Novellis Reip. litterariis* of August 1703, p. 229. FABR. The *Ecclesiastical History* of Eusebius, Socrates, and Evagrius, with Dorotheus' *On the lives of the prophets, apostles, and the LXX disciples*, translated into English by Meredith Hammer, London 1577, 1585, 1607, 1636; and with the *Life of Constantine the Great* added, translated from the Greek of Eusebius into English by Wye Saltonstall, London 1650, F., reprinted with the annotations of Valesius, Cambridge 1683, 1692, 1696, 1709, fol. Eusebius' *Ecclesiastical History*, ten books, translated into English and abridged by Sam. Parker, with a prefixed dissertation, *De usu atque auctoritate H. E. et vita Eusebii*, etc., London 1703, 8; and, with the addition of volume II, the epitome of the *Ecclesiastical History* of Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, by the same Parker, London 1729, 4. Certain places of Eusebius and Socrates translated in Whiston's *Collection of ancient monuments relating to the Trinity and Incarnation*, etc., London 1713, 8, passim. *Epitome: An Abridgement of Eusebius Pamphilus Ecclesiastical History, in two parts. Part 1, A compendious commemoration of the remarkablest Chronologies which are contained in that famous History. Part II, A summary or brief hint of the twelve persecutions sustained by the ancient Christians...* by William Caton, London 1736, 8. Dav. Dalrymple de Hailes' English version of *H. E.* VI, 41, and of the epistle of Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, to Fabius, bishop of Antioch, concerning the persecution of the Christians in Egypt in the first year of the Emperor Decius, and an explanation of the history of the martyrs in Palestine under Diocletian at LVIII, in *Remains of Christian Antiquity, with explanatory notes*, Edinburgh, 1778-1780, 8, 11 vols. ^B *The History of ancient Paganism, as delivered by Eusebius, etc., with critical and historical notes. And secondly, a Phœnician and Egyptian Chronology, from the first Man, down to the first olympiad, etc.* London 1643, 8. V. A. Bruggemann, *View, etc.*, p. 395 sqq. The *Epistle of the Church of Smyrna concerning the martyrdom of Polycarp* (a great part of which is in Eusebius *H. E.* IV, 15, and published separately by Ussher) and the epistle of the Christians of Lyon and Vienne, translated into English and explained by D. Dalrymple de Hailes in *Account of the martyrs at Smyrna and Lyon in the second century, with explanatory notes*, Edinburgh, 1776, 8. V., which I noted in *Introd. in hist. L. Gr.*, II, 2, p. 222.

In Italian, it was translated from the Latin version, *H. E.*, Venice 1547, 8. V. Paitoni, *Bibl. degli autori-volgarizzati*, vol. II, p. 59. Concerning the Canon of the books of the New Testament according to Eusebius, see above in vol. IV, page 831 sqq., to which you may add the vindications of Eusebius written by J. Ern. Christian Schmidt, *über den Kanon des Eusebius* in Henck's *Magazin für Religionsphilosophie, Exegese und Kirchengeschichte*, vol. V, part II, n. 16, 1796, 8. He defends Eusebius against M. Weber in *Beyträgen zur Geschichte des neutestamentlichen Kanons*, p. 142 sqq., and shows that Eusebius distinguishes four classes of books. HARL.

In French, translated by Claude de Seyssel, Archbishop of Turin (which version is praised in Morleri's *Speciminibus litterariis* [Essais de littérature, vol. I, p. 35]) and from the interpretation of Lud. Cousin, Paris 1675 sqq., 4, 4 vols. That he translated several passages of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret with shaky fidelity is argued by Paul Colomiès in *Observatt. sacris*, p. 61.

Nicephorus Callistus transcribed almost the entire History of Eusebius into his own work; ^C hence Valesius noted the Nicephorian numbers in the margin of Eusebius' chapters. The whole Catalogue of ecclesiastical writers, as I have already said, with a few exceptions, was also compiled and translated by Jerome from Eusebius' *History*; for I do not otherwise believe the *History* of Eusebius itself was translated into Latin by him in its entirety, although someone might suspect this from these words of his in lib. 1 *in Rufin.*: "I have praised Eusebius in his *Ecclesiastical History*, in his *Chronicle*, in his *Description of the Holy Land*, and I have translated these very works into Latin and given them to men of my own language." Byrhtferth of Ramsey also attributes the version of the Eusebian *History* to Jerome in his glosses on Bede's *De temporum ratione*, cap. 28. But it is established that it belongs to Rufinus. In what sense, however, the History of Eusebius is reckoned among the apocrypha in the Gelasian decree is disputed by J. Pearson in *Vindic. Ignatii*, p. 48, and Matthew Larroque in *Observationibus ad Pearsonianas Vindicias*, p. 35 sqq. See also Baluze in Antonio Agustín's *De emendatione Gratiani*, p. 446 (717 sqq. Mastricht ed.), where he refutes Charles Dumoulin, who had thought of a second Eusebius Pamphili and a different ecclesiastical history. Indeed, it is clear from many examples ^D that in that decree, the term "apocrypha" is applied not only to writings falsely attributed to authors by heretics, but also to true and most certain writings, not only those of non-heretics

^A of those whose doctrine was not in all things approved by the Church, just as Eusebius was suspected by many of Arianism, and fared poorly due to his familiarity with the Colluthians and Meletians.

IV. The book *On the Martyrs of Palestine*, who suffered in the persecution of Diocletian and Maximian from A.D. 303 to 310, is submitted in the Greek edition of Robert Estienne and the Greek-Latin edition of Henri de Valois in the eighth book of the *Ecclesiastical History*. It was omitted by Rufinus and Musculus, published in part by Christophorson for the eighth book, and illustrated by the notes of Suffridus Petri. Theodoric Ruinart inserted this work in Latin, from Valois’s version and with his own notes, into the *Select Acts of the Martyrs*, pp. 350-352, Paris, 1689. It was translated by Vincent Marinerius and published by the Bollandists, as John Bollandus himself testifies in his preface to the first volume of the *Acta Sanctorum* for January, p. 45. Eusebius promises that book, as distinct from the work of the *Ecclesiastical History*, in VIII, 13, p. 308: "As for those whose suffering I myself witnessed, I shall make them known to those after us in a different work." ^B

V. *Book against Hierocles*, who, from being a vicar in Bithynia, became governor of Alexandria, regarding the things said by Philostratus concerning Apollonius of Tyana, on account of the comparison between him and Christ adopted by Hierocles. That Hierocles was an author and counselor to Diocletian in instigating the persecution, as witnessed by Lactantius in chapter 16 of *On the Deaths of the Persecutors*; and he wrote two books to the Christians, as the same author reports in book V, chapter 2, of the *Divine Institutes*. (That he inscribed them *Lover of Truth to the Christians*, you may gather from the same Lactantius and from Eusebius), in which, among other things, he wished to show that Apollonius had done things either equal to, or even greater than, Christ. The first to publish Eusebius's book, which Photius (cod. XXXIX) calls a *refutational treatise*, in Greek was Aldus, along with the *Apollonius* of Philostratus, Venice, 1502, fol., and 1535, 8. It was translated into Latin by Zenobius Acciaiolus, a Florentine of the Order of Preachers, with a letter prefaced to Lorenzo de' Medici, Venice, by Aldus, 1502, and Paris, 1511, 8; Cologne, 1532, 8, with Philostratus’s *Life of Apollonius*, and frequently edited together in Latin among the works of Eusebius at the end of the books *On the Gospel Demonstration*. That this book was very poorly translated by the Florentine is noted by Pearson in his preface to *Against Hierocles*. It was published in Greek and Latin, with the version of Acciaiolus and various readings from the codex of the King of France ascribed by Federico Morello, among the works of Philostratus, p. 435, Paris, 1608, fol. Later, with corrections noted from the same royal codex by Lucas Holstenius, who also interpolated the version in certain places, it appeared at the end of the books of Eusebius *On the Gospel Demonstration* (not, as Cave wrote in a lapse of memory, with the books *On the Gospel Preparation*), Paris, 1628, fol., and Leipzig, 1688, fol. Finally, with a new version and notes by Godfried Olearius, who also divided the book into chapters and corrected the text in many places by collating the passages of Philostratus, Leipzig, 1709, fol., in that splendid edition of the *Works of Philostratus*. Ludovicus Cousinus translated it into French, Paris, 1684, 4: *Discourse touching the miracles attributed to Apollonius of Tyana, etc.*

VI. *On Marcellus*, two books against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra, and his long ^C work of almost ten thousand lines, by which he had incautiously defended Sabellianism, and had taught that the Son and the Father are designated "in name different as Father and Son, but in essence and subsistence are one," and had attacked Asterius, especially the Cappadocian, then Eusebius the Great (of Nicomedia), Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre and then of Antioch, Origen, and others.

[alt-version omitted]

Narcissus, Bishop of Neroniades, and the other Eusebius, of Cæsarea in Palestine. A synod gathered from Pontus, Cappadocia, Asia, Phrygia, Bithynia, Thrace, and further regions at Constantinople in A.D. 336, condemned Marcellus and gave orders to Eusebius to refute him, as he himself relates at the end of the second book. Before these books were published, having been read by Turrianus, they were first reviewed from a manuscript code and illustrated with a Latin version and notes by Richard Montagu, published at the end of the books *De demonstratione evangelica*, Paris, 1628, fol., Lipsia, 1688, fol. Thomas Gale possessed a manuscript code. ^A FABR. — V. *Catalogus codicum Angliæ et Hiberniæ* II, page 186, no. 8888, and in the Bodleian codes 2040 twice and 2276. In the Venetian code of St. Mark, 496, both books against Marcellus; in code 949, no. 1 in the public library of Paris, two books. The illustrious Rettberg, rector of the school at Clausthal, published selected observations on Eusebius' books against Marcellus in the *Annales litterarii* of Helmstädt, in the months of May and June, 1787, and separately at Lipsia, 1787, 8; then *Marcelliana*. An improved *Exposition of Faith* by Eunomius is added. Edited and provided with annotations by Christian Henr. Georg. Rettberg, Göttingen, 1794, 8; meanwhile, the fragments of Marcellus, placed confusedly in Eusebius and not carefully preserved, were collected, ordered, amended, and explained, and he won praise for his diligence in the *Ephemerides litterariae* of Göttingen, 1794, no. 203. ^B HARL.

VII.

On Ecclesiastical Theology, in three books of refutations against the same Marcellus

VIII. *Epistle on the Nicene Faith to the Cæsareans*, which Gelasius of Cyzicus preserved in the *Acts of the Council of Nicaea*, II, 35 sq., p. 50, calling it an encyclical epistle; and Socrates, lib. I, cap. 8, page 23 seq.; and Theodoret, lib. I *Hist.*, cap. 12, from whence the *Tripartita* lib. II, cap. 11, and Nicephorus VIII repeat it; then lib. II, cap. 1, because he affirms it was sent to the *koinon* of orthodox bishops. From this epistle St. Athanasius produces something in his epistle *To the African Bishops*, tom. I, p. 937; and at the end of his epistle *On the Decrees of the Nicene Synod*. Cave notes that it appears in the manuscript in the Vienna library, Lambecius III, p. 86. The words which Theodoret, page 40, and others have, and which Socrates, p. 27, and the *Tripartita* omit, Cave contends in his *Apology against J. Clericus*, page 89, conflict diametrically with Eusebius' doctrine concerning the eternal hypostasis of the Son, and therefore are not Eusebius', but inserted by some Arian fraud, which he had also affirmed in his *Dissertation for Eusebius*, page 47, Genevan edition.

IX.

On local names in Holy Scripture, Concerning Hebrew Places

when in his *Catalogue of Chaldean Books*, page 18, he mentions Eusebius's book *On the Figure of the World*.

X. That our Eusebius wrote most learned commentaries on the 150 Psalms, Jerome testifies in his *Catalogue*, chapter 81, as does Suidas. Eusebius of Vercelli translated them into Latin, as the same Jerome is the author, in epistle 89 to Augustine, and in chapter 96 of the *Catalogue*, and in his work *Against Vigilantius*, where he teaches that heretical passages—that is, those which seemed to smack of the Arian heresy—had been omitted by the translator. Eusebius is cited on the Psalms by Gelasius in *On the Two Natures*, and by Theodoret, whom Antonius Agellius cites on Psalm 88, and in both published and manuscript catenae on the Psalms. The first to bring forth Eusebius's *Hypomnemata*, or *Commentaries on the Psalms 119* [actually 118], from three codices—the Perronian, the Seguierian, and the Colbertine—with the manuscript catenae on the Psalms also collated and published, ^B and [brought forth] with his own Latin version, was Bernard de Montfaucon in his *Nova collectio Patrum*, volume I, Paris, 1706, folio. The Latin version of Eusebius of Vercelli and the Greek itself for the later 31 Psalms have perished. Many fragments of interpreters occur in this work: Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion. Origen is also cited on Psalm 119, page 723, and Asterius on Psalm 4, page 28. Eusebius's *Perioche* or *Hypotheses*, brief arguments on the Psalms, had been edited from an ancient Barberini codex in volume VI of the London *Polyglot Bibles*, page 137 seq. Arguments on the Psalms were also edited by Grabe in the preface to the third volume of the Greek version of the LXX Interpreters, London, 1709. A fragment on Psalm 86 was in the possession of Thomas Gale. In the *Catalogue of Manuscripts of the Medicean Library*, I also see mentioned Eusebian *Præfatiunculae* on the Psalms; Lambecius mentions two, one *On the Diapsalma*, the other an *Hypothesis on the Recapitulation of the Psalms*, volume III, pages 24 and 29.

It is to be understood that the *Commentaries* are not to be taken as being entirely his, but only as those expositions which were taken both from Eusebius himself and from the works of ecclesiastical writers older than he; those things in the same *Commentary* that pertain to authors later than Eusebius were added by others at will after the first Eusebian collection. Kollarius, however, did not add any observation, which he had promised in volume III, loc. cit.—Ibid., page 393, in codex 167 exist: Eusebius's *Interpretation of the Diapsalma*, and general and specific arguments on every single psalm, and from folio 265, page 2, fragments of Eusebius and other ecclesiastical writers in a *Commentary on various Sacred Canticles of the Old and New Testaments*.—Ibid., page 458, in codex 188, no. 22, the anonymous exposition of Psalm 104 is repeated, collected from Eusebius, Athanasius, and others.—ibid., pages 259 and 261, in codex 146, nos. 10 and 21, there are excerpts from Eusebius, Cyril, and others in the expositions on the Old Testament.—In volume V, page 247, in codex 246, no. 15, Eusebius's *Hypothesis on the Diapsalma*.—Page 595, in codex 321, no. 2, the *Psalter of David with Eusebius's Prolegomena on the Diapsalma and his arguments for the individual psalms*.—In Paris, in the public library, in codex 463, *Eusebius's Commentary on the Psalms*.—In codex 146, in the *Catena on the Psalms*, no. 8, excerpts on the Psalms from Eusebius of Caesarea.—in another *Catena on the Psalms*, in codex 163, no. 4, Eusebius's two arguments, and no. 3, certain extracts on the Psalms from Eusebius.—In the Medicean codex, which Fabricius mentions, or rather in two codices, no. 15, plut. 5, especially in codex 3, plut. 6, of which is displayed: *Eusebii hypomnēma eis tous Psalmous*—it is rather a *Catena of Ecclesiastical Fathers* on these Eusebian [works] on the Psalms; in the latter is, no. 4, Eusebius's interpretation of certain inscriptions, written in the manner of a summary; nos. 5, 6, his *Hypotheses and arguments on the Psalms*; no. 12, *Eusebius on the Psalms*; no. 14, the *Prayer of Manasseh* with the scholia of Eusebius and others. See Bandini, I, page 35 seq., who observes that Corderius's exposition of the Greek Fathers on the Psalms can be corrected and augmented by a very rich collection from both codices.—In the Venetian library of St. Mark, codex 17, *Psalter with a very extensive marginal catena of Eusebius and other Fathers* (Catalog of Greek codices, page 19).—*Division of the Psalms* in codex 19 of the Royal Library of Naples.—*Eusebius's Hypothesis in the Catena of Fathers on the Psalms* in the Coislinian codex 12. See Montfaucon, *Bibliotheca Coisliniana*, page 58.—*Eusebius's Commentary on the Psalms* 51–95 (Montf. loc. cit., page 115), from which codex Montfaucon edited them in his new *Collection*. Thus, in other *Catenae on the Psalms*, in codices of Great Britain, according to the *Catalog of English codices*, Eusebian [writings] are found.

NOTITIA.

Commentaries written by Eusebius about A.D. 337 are noted by Montfaucon in his letter *De Therapeutis*, p. 151.

XI. J. Meursius published fragments of the *Commentaries on the Song of Songs* in Greek, along with the *Explanation* of Polychronius the deacon and Michael Psellus, written in political verse (Lugd. Bat. 1617, 4to). That the entire commentary published under the name of Eusebius from a codex of the Palatine library is not by Eusebius is evident, for there appear in it fragments of Athanasius, p. 18, 32, 39, 51; of Didymus, p. 19; of Gregory of Nyssa, p. 11, 14; of Philo of Carpathus, p. 13 seq., 32, 34, 39, 44, 52 seq.; and of Theophilus (or Theophylact?), p. 37. Compare Lambecius, III, p. 71 [p. 212 of Kollar’s ed.] and Raynaud, *De bonis ac malis libris*, p. 138. FABR.—In Barocci codex CXXXII, there is a fragment of Eusebius’s exposition on the Canticles of the Old Testament. In the Bodleian codex n. MMMXXIV; also in codices CLXXIII and CMXLVIII of the public library of Paris, there exists a commentary or exposition of Eusebius on the Song of Songs. In the Leiden codex among the Bonaventure Vulcanius collection, there is a commentary of Eusebius on the Song of Songs, collected from Philo, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Didymus, and Theophilus, in Greek. See *Catalogus bibliothecae Leidensis*, p. 346, n. 50. HARL.

XII. ^A *Περὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν προφητῶν ὀνομασίας*, *On the Lives of the Prophets*, a fragment of Eusebius from a very old Rupefucaldus codex (which the library of the Jesuit college in Paris keeps today) was edited in Greek, with a Latin version added by J. Curterius, before Procopius of Gaza’s *Commentaries on Isaiah* (Paris, 1580, fol.). It is cited there, he says, as being without doubt his books of prophetic excerpts concerning Christ. Even in these commentaries of Eusebius, fragments of ancient interpreters, Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, are frequently cited. Furthermore, it must be admitted that for most of the prophet’s chapters, not so much the entire commentaries of Eusebius as merely longer excerpts from them have been preserved. The distinction into books and the commentary on the whole chapter LXI has also perished. Nor does the closing phrase seem to be by Eusebius: “Of which may we also be counted worthy through the prayers and intercessions of all the saints. Amen.” Furthermore, the reader should be warned that the commentaries on Isaiah which are circulated under the name of Basil of Caesarea ^B are also incorrectly attributed to Eusebius in some codices, such as the Thuanus, which today is Colbertinus MMDIVC. FABR.—Eusebius’s commentary on the first vision of Isaiah (for the rest is missing) is in codex MMCDLXIII of the public library of Paris. Scholia from the works of Eusebius on Isaiah are on the margin of Vienna codex LXXII, which contains Basil’s exposition of chapters XV of Isaiah. Lambecius, tom. III, p. 345. Furthermore, there occur fragments and interpretations of Eusebius in catenae on Leviticus of Moses, on Proverbs, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Matthew, Luke, John, the Epistle to the Romans, etc., in several Coislinian codices (see, for example, Montfaucon, *Bibl. Coislin.*, p. 41-43, 61-65, 66, 67, 75, 76, 82, 247, 248, 251, 273, 275), in Vienna codices XL, XLII, XLVI, XLVII, tom. III of the *Commentaries* (Lambecius), and in other codices and libraries. Miscellaneous excerpts from the expositions of Philo the Hebrew, Eusebius Pamphili, and others on the O.T. are in Vienna codex CXLVI, n. 13 and 21 (Lambecius; IV, p. 259 seq.). Among the Syriac codices of the public library of Paris, there is the 4th book of Kings and Daniel, with some observations, of which Eusebius Pamphili and Epiphanius are said to be the authors (catalog of Paris codices I, p. 54, cod. V). A fragment of Eusebius on the kinship of the Blessed Mary and Elizabeth (on the Gospel of Luke) is in Vienna codex CLXIV (Lambecius IV, p. 364, n. 3). Conf. to sect. 16. HARL.

XIII. ^C That Eusebius wrote commentaries on Isaiah in ten books is attested by Jerome, *Catalogus* cap. 81, and Suidas; therefore, what is mentioned in Jerome’s preface to Isaiah as fifteen books should be corrected. Bernard de Montfaucon, already lauded by me above, was the first to restore them for the most part from the Perronian codex and royal manuscript catenae, and to publish them in Greek with his own version and preface in *Nova collectio Patrum*, tomo II, Paris 1706, fol. From this work of Eusebius, many things were translated word for word by Jerome (who also, where Eusebius wrote that he had edited something from a Hebrew doctor, testifies the same as if it were about himself), Procopius of Gaza, and the authors of the Greek Catenae on Isaiah, John Drungarius, Andreas the presbyter, and others. For Lambecius is mistaken who, in II, p. 44 [p. 107 ed. Kollar., cod. XXVI], mentioning a manuscript catena on Isaiah where Eusebius ^D is cited, says... [the remainder of this volume continues to chronicle codical locations] ...from the Greek library of the Bodleian [n. CLIV, CLX, CCXXIII, CCLXXXIX, DCCX, MCMLXXXII]. In the Gale codex number MMMMMCMLXI (Cat. tom. II, p. 188). Eusebius’s fragment on the interpretation of Psalm LXXXVI. In the Ottoboni library (Montfaucon *Bibl. bibliothecar. ms.*, vol. I, p. 287 A). In a certain Constantinople codex, mentioned by Martin Crusius in *Turco-Graecia*, book VII, and containing a catena on the Psalms, see below vol. VI, p. 686 of the old edition, etc. HARL.

XIV. Canons or ten indices of the harmony of the Gospels with the preface to the Epistle to Carpianus. Richard Simon should also be consulted, *Hist. criticæ N. T.*, lib. III, p. 427 seq., and lib. II, p. 90. J. Mill, *Prolegom. ad N. T.*, p. LXX, who himself also prefixed these Canons, along with the Epistle to Carpianus, to the Greek New Testament edited by himself, following the example of Erasmus and Robert Stephanus (a). They are prefixed in Latin to certain ancient codices of the Bible, and from there the Vulgate was... in codex X, the Canons of Eusebius with the Epistle to Carpianus are prefixed to the 4 Gospels. In the Coislin library, the Canons of Eusebius with the epistle, in the codex of the gospels, n. ..., in codex XX, complete in codices XXI, XXII, CXCV (in which the Gospel of Matthew has the commentaries of Eusebius and others attached to it), — CXCVI (which contains an Evangelistary); v. Montfaucon *Bibl. Coisl.*, p. 63, sq., 65, 66, 247, 249. In Florence, in the Medicean Library, in codices XIV, XV, XVIII, n. 3 and 4, cod. XXIII and XXXII, concerning which Bandinius discourses at length in *Cat. cod. Gr.* I, p. 125, 126, 153, 147 and 158. In Great Britain according to the Catalog of English codices, etc., in the Barocci codex n. XXIX...

^A in the *Orthodoxographa* and by Joseph Maria Thomasius, and from whence it was omitted by Marcianaeus in the *Biblia*, as he calls it—which I find surprising, although he rightly prefaced the Canons of the New Testament themselves, according to the testimony of Jerome himself in his preface to Damasus on the four Gospels: "We have also expressed the Canons, which Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, having followed Ammonius of Alexandria, organized into ten numbers, as they are held in the Greek." The same Jerome, in chapter 55 of his *Catalogus*, and Isidore of Seville after him (Origg. VI, 15), says that Ammonius devised the evangelical canons, which Eusebius of Caesarea later followed. But Eusebius did not at all devise those Canons; he was merely the author of the evangelical harmony, so composed that Matthew was placed as a foundation, and then the parallel chapters from the other ^B evangelists were noted alongside it, and the narratives of the other evangelists omitted by Matthew were interwoven. Hence, so that the series of the other three evangelists and their comparison with the remaining evangelists might also be consistent, Eusebius testifies that he devised and composed these ten Canons (a). That they are held in Greek in the manuscript library of the Augustinians at Naples was noted by Mabillon (*Musei Italici*, vol. I, p. 110; indeed, in two codices of the Gospels of the 11th century, as Montfaucon notes in his *Diarium Italicum*, p. 208). Cassiodorus praises these Eusebian canons in chapter 7 of his *Institutiones Divinae*, and they were in frequent use in the Churches of both the East and the West, as learned men have noted from manuscript codices of the Bible in various versions.

[For the four Gospels with the epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus: In the codex of the Huntington Library, n. 5800 (*Cat.* I, p. 280), are the four Gospels, in Arabic, with the Canons of Eusebius and the chapters. In the Norfolk Library, n. 3307 (*Cat.* II, p. 83), are four Gospels, with a Calendar and the Canons of Eusebius, in Arabic; ibid., n. 3431, are four Gospels, with the canon of Eusebius and the *tipikon*, in Greek. In the Imperial Library at Vienna are four Gospels, with excerpts from the commentaries of various men and with the Canons and epistle of Eusebius. In codices XXIX, XXX, ^C XXXI, concerning which see Lambecius, *Comment.* I, p. 111-126, and for another codex, see the same, vol. V, p. 240, n. 4. Then in codices IV, V, and VI, concerning which Kollar is prolific in his *Supplement* I to Lambecius’ *Commentarii de bibl. Vindob.*, p. 10, 20, and 45 sq. In the Leiden library (see *Catal.*, p. 410, n. 223) are four Gospels and the Decalogue in Arabic, with Eusebius’ evangelical concordances. In Gallandi’s *Bibliotheca Patrum* II, 591, are the Canons of Eusebius with Ammonius of Alexandria’s *Harmony of the Four Gospels*, and in vol. IV, p. 641, are certain writings of Eusebius. HARL. The same in Latin from the version of St. Jerome with the epistle to Carpianus in Greek and Latin are found in St. Jerome, *Opp.* t. X, p. 1, p. 667-82.]

(a) In the Vienna codex this scholion is added: "The Canons were so named because of their rectitude and precision. For just as those using straight lines do not allow the mind of the hearer to wander, but lead it to the concord of the voices brought forth by the Evangelists, they also, by their own rectitude, do not allow the mind of the hearer to wander, but lead it to the harmony of the voices brought forth to the Evangelists." [V. Lambec. *Comment.* vol. III, p. 113.]

(b) Eusebius himself, in *Demonstratio evangelica* lib. VII, c. 5, testifies that he composed a work titled *Quaestiones et solutiones*, and St. Jerome, *De viris illustribus* c. 81, mentions the same work under the title *De Evangeliorum diaphonia (seu dissonantia)*.

XV. On the disagreement of the Gospels

That Eusebius wrote *On the disagreement of the Gospels* is testified by Jerome in his *Catalogus*, ch. 81, and after him by Suidas. Hebeda-Jesu in his *Catalog of Chaldean books* calls it the *Book of the resolution of contradictions which are in the Gospels*. And Latinus Latinius writes in *Epistolarum* t. II, p. 116, that three books of Eusebius *On the disagreement of the Gospels* were found in Sicily. But there has been no one as yet who might bring them to light (b). A Greek manuscript catena on Mark, about which Richard Simon speaks in *Hist. crit.* lib. II, p. 89, praises Eusebius in his *To Marinus regarding the apparent disagreement in the Gospels concerning the resurrection*. A fragment of this writing was preserved by Anastasius Sinaita, *Quaest.* 153. Combefisius edited two other fragments in Greek and Latin in his *Auctarium Novum*, Paris 1648, fol., t. I, p. 781, 783. One, which also exists from the version of Ambrose of Milan, a Cassinese monk, according to Sixtus Senensis, is on: "Sero Sabbatorum." The other is *On the angels seen at the monument*. Holstenius had also wished to edit these, according to Lambecius, *De bibl. Vindob.* lib. I, p. 112, but he was prevented by death and omitted them. Labbeus mentions one on *The triduum of the Lord's burial* in *Bibl. nova mss.*, p. 184 (c). There also exist some of his writings in catenae on the evangelists, both edited and inedited, most of which seem to be repeated from the same work. The same Combefisius exhibits more of Eusebius in Latin from the catenae on Luke in his *Bibliotheca concionatoria* (d). From the Eusebius of Pamphilus to Marinus... it is given, as is also the *Commentary on Matthew* ch. 1, v. 16. These excerpts were first edited in Greek and Latin by Angelo Mai in *Collectio nova veterum scriptorum* t. I (Rome 1831) p. 1, p. 1-111, and p. 261-84. Cf. his *Prolegomena*, n. 2-6 (p. VI-XI). FESSLER, *Institut. Patrologiae* I, 1, p. 347. Oniponte, 1850.

(c) Concerning the burial of Christ, in the Gale codex, n. 4949. *Cat. Angl.*, etc., II, p. 488. *On the apparent disagreement of the evangelists in the resurrection of our Lord and God*, in the Venetian codex of St. Mark 495 (*Catal. codd. Gr.*, p. 259). In the Laurentian Florentine codex V (which contains a catena on Matthew, John, and Luke and on the seven Catholic Epistles) and codex XXXIII (which comprises the four Gospels with a catena of the Fathers), two fragments of Eusebius are annexed to the commentary on Matthew: *Disquisition on the time of the Lord’s resurrection between Matthew and Mark*, regarding those things in Gospel ch. XXVIII: "Vespere autem Sabbati," which fragment is indeed longer in the former codex than in the latter; and on the angels seen at the monument. V. Bandini, *Cat. codd. Gr.* I, p. 20, 101, and 159. In the Paris public library there are fragments of the same work several times in the catenae, sometimes separated from them, with other small works, in codices 196, 199, 200, 201, 206 (which is a catena), 572, n. 9, an excerpt from Eusebius *On the hour at which Christ was fixed to the cross* and on the disagreement of the evangelists: Fragment in codices 701, n. 1, 703 and 704. V. ad. sect. i. HARL.

(d) Angelo Mai presents the fragments of Eusebius of Caesarea from the *Commentary on Luke* in Greek in *Collectio nova veterum scriptorum*, t. I (Rome 1831) p. 1, p. 143-260. Cf. his *Prolegomena* n. 8 (p. X). EDIT.

^A Fragments appear in Anastasius Sinaita’s *Quest.* IX and CXLV, but those are of a different subject matter (a). Cave mentions that Eusebius wrote on the disagreement of the Gospels regarding Stephen. But as to what Eusebius wrote on the *Symphonia* or harmony of the Gospels in the genealogy of Christ, following Africanus, current in his *Hist. eccles.*, book I, ch. 7, and which Ambrose used in his *II in Lucam*.

XVI.

*Oratio de Constantini M. laudibus* [Oration on the Praises of Constantine the Great]

XVII. *De Vita Constantini M.*, who already died in A.C. 337, books IV (b), in which he says that he intended to omit conflicts and battles, acts of valor, trophies and triumphs, laws and noble institutions, and to deliver only

τὰ πρὸς τὸν θεοφιλῆ συντείνοντα βίον

Περὶ τοῦ κατὰ Θεὸν βίου τοῦ μακαρίου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ βασιλέως

πανηγυρικῇ ὑψηγορίᾳ

books are usually appended, [can be] seen noted above, num. 5. I will only warn that in certain Latin editions the brief scholia of J. Jac. Grynæus and Suffridus Petrus are appended. There is also the equivalent of a French interpretation in the work that appeared under the authorship of Jean Morin: *Histoire de la délivrance de l'Eglise chrétienne, par l'empereur Constantin*. Paris, 1630, folio.

XVIII. That he wrote concerning the *Life of S. Pamphilus the martyr*, Eusebius himself testifies in lib. VI (a), cap. 32, and in lib. VII *Hist. eccles.*, cap. 32, page 288, and in *De martyribus Palæstinæ*, cap. 11, where he relates that said work was distinct, being in three books, which is also confirmed by Jerome in *Catalogo*, cap. 81, and *adversus Rufin.*, page 135, where he calls them most elegant books. Papebrochius, in t. I *Act. Sanctorum Junii*, pages 64-74, exhibits a genuine ^A *apospasma* of this work, as he thinks, concerning the martyrdom of Pamphilus, in Greek, copied from a Medicean manuscript codex of the most Christian King, with a Latin version. [Fabr. in his Hippolyti *Opp.* edit., t. II, page 217.] Lipomanus and Surius on June 1, and Valesius on page 178 of *ad Euseb.*, had given that Latin [version] from Eusebius and Metaphrastes.

XIX. That he wrote a *Collection of ancient martyrdoms* (*Τῶν ἀρχαίων μαρτυρίων συναγωγήν*), Eusebius testifies in *Hist. eccles.* lib. IV, cap. 15, page 136, and lib. V, proem., page 153, and cap. 21, page 189. Of this celebrated work—which we must lament has not reached us in its entirety—many things seem to survive in the *Lives of the Fathers* published in Latin under the name of Jerome, and in Simeon Metaphrastes, who composed the Lives and martyrdoms of the saints in the Greek style. Papebrochius believed he was providing a fragment from this Eusebian work, namely the *Narration of the ten martyrs of Egypt*, in Greek from the Vatican manuscript with the version of Guil. Sirlet, in t. I *Act. sanctor. Junii*, p. 420 seq. Thus the *Acts of the martyrdom of S. Lucian* published in Latin by Surius and Bollandus on January 7, Ussher, in Cave, suspected the Metaphrastes had sought from Eusebius. Franciscus Bivarius, in *Pseudo Dextri Chronicon*, ad A. C. 308, affirms that his complete *Martyrium anagraphē* survived in the Escorial library. And that the three books of Eusebius’s martyrs had not yet been translated from the Greek there, his index of the same library [shows]; he learned and wrote to Baronius, as Baronius narrates in *Martyrolog.* 25 Sept., that in 1579, as Lindanus told him. The writer of the *Acts of S. Silvester*, in Lambecius t. VIII, p. 321 [p. 683 sq. ed. Kollar.], hands down that this work consisted of two decades of books, or twenty books. The words of that writer are:

^B Our historiographer Eusebius, when he was writing his *Ecclesiastical History*, omitted those things of which he had made mention in his other compositions. For in twenty discourses, that is to say in two sets of twelve, concerning the martyrs of almost all the provinces, the bishops, confessors, and holy women and virgins, he provided for their sufferings to be carried [recorded]. I am surprised that Cave attributes not twenty, but eleven books to this work, and cites as authority for that matter the *Acts of Silvester*, edited by Combefis. [Perhaps that work *Concerning the martyrs of Palestine*, which in the editions of *H. E.* is attached to book VIII, and of which see Fabr. *B. Gr.* vol. IX, page 33 sq. ed. vet., was a part of this collection of ancient martyrs.] Consult concerning the same Eusebian work Bollandus, preface to t. I *Act. sanctor. Januar.*, pages XVI and XLV, and Henschenius t. II Aprilis, page 539; Baronius, *Dissertation* prefixed to the *Roman Martyrology*, cap. 5-7, and Matthias Frid. Beckius, *ad Martyrologium Ecclesiæ Germanicæ*, page 5 seq. FABR. In cod. MCDLII of the public library of Paris is n. XX, the martyrdom of Onesimus, who was a disciple of Paul, and n. XXII, the martyrdom of Pamphilus, Valens, Paul, Seleucus, Porphyry, Theodulus, and Julian, by the author Eusebius. HARL.

XX. The *Epistle to Constantia Augusta*, wife of Licinius, praised by the Iconoclasts in the *Acts of the second Council of Nicea*, act. V, page 608, and VI, page 661, ^C impugned by the patriarch of Constantinople. Nicephorus Gregoras, *Hist.* XIX, 3, speaks of the same, where he calls Eusebius "the foremost of the learned of that time" (*τῶν τότε λογίων τὸν πρῶτον*), page 591. J. Boivin edited it more fully in Greek from the royal manuscript with learned notes to Nicephorus Gregoras, page 795. Petavius XIV, 9, *Dogm. theol. de Incarnatione*, does not doubt that it is spurious and suppositious to Eusebius. But it is rightly vindicated for Eusebius by the praised Boivin. In the same *Acts of the Council of Nicea* something is also brought forward, pages 608 and 662, from an epistle of Eusebius to Euphratenes or Euphrasion and to Alexander the Alexandrian.

Exist only in Latin:

XXI. *First book of the Apology for Origen*, from the version of Rufinus, edited among the Works of Origen and Jerome often under the name of Pamphilus. And indeed Lindanus in 1579 learned from the library and wrote to Baronius, as Baronius narrates in *Martyrolog.* 25 Sept., that this work consisted of two decades, or twenty books (for that *Apology* is comprised of six books—so many) and that Pamphilus composed the first five together with Eusebius, and the sixth was added by Eusebius, as Photius testifies (b) in cod. CXVIII. Consult Eusebius himself, *Hist.* VI, 33, and what Tillemont, *Memor. eccles.* t. V, part III, page ^D [content continues to next page] ...dita est versioni H. E. de qua supra jam egimus. HARL. (a) Eusebius teaches there that in that work he displayed *pinakas*—that is, indices of the books of Origen, as well as of other ecclesiastical writers, which Pamphilus had collected with the greatest zeal for the adorning of his library. (b) It is among the Latin codexes of the Venetian library of St. Mark, cod. XXXVIII. See *Cat. codd. Lat.*, page 17. HARL.

^A and in *Supplem. Bibl. PP.* Paris. 1639, tom. I, page 826 (v. Fabr. *B. Gr.* XIII, page 814); but what is reported in it, as to what Eusebius the bishop replied to Alexander when asked what fruit those bear who venerate the saints and the blessed departed, is something that, if it be genuine, may be attributed to Eusebius of Alexandria. — Furthermore, it is worth noting that in Bodleian codex no. MMCCXXIII (*Cat. codd. Angliæ* I, page 116) there exist eight homilies of Eusebius (whose they are, it is not added), the first of which is addressed to monks; but in the same codex, the ninth homily of Eusebius of Emesa addressed to monks is said to be found. See below concerning Eusebius of Emesa. — In the codex of the cathedral church of Durham, no. CCLXXXXII, there is a sermon of Eusebius (with no added indication of which one? perhaps Emesenus, in *Catal. mem.* II, page 9) on the Nativity of the Lord. In the index to vol. II of the *Catal. codd. Paris. bibl. publ.*, a speech of Eusebius of Caesarea on the entry into the time of fasting is cited. — In the Bodleian library, among the Laud codices no. DCCXIV, are certain Greek fragments on penance from Eusebius, Chrysostom, Basil, etc. HARL.

Deals with the incorporeal and invisible God, and six homilies on the incorporeal soul and the spiritual thought of man.

On what the Lord says, Matt. x, 34: "I came not to send peace upon the earth."

On the Lord's command, Matt. x, 37: "What I tell you in the ear, proclaim upon the housetops."

On good and evil works, homilies 1 and 2 on II Cor. vii, 9 seq.

That these small works were translated from the Greek is gathered from various arguments, nor are they unworthy of Eusebius of Caesarea, and they are attributed to him by Sirmond, Valesius, Du Pin, and others [supported by the codexes that are named and by the authority of Jerome]. Nor does the opinion of Cave please, who by uncertain conjecture prefers to refer them to Eusebius of Emesa. [Nor does it please Oudin, l. c., page 313.]

XXIII. The Acts of Pope Sylvester are attributed to Eusebius as author in certain codexes (a) and by Ratramnus in book IV *Against the Errors of the Greeks*. But this error is proven manifest by many, says Baronius in the *Martyrologium* for December 31, since even by the testimony of Gelasius the Acts of Sylvester were written by an uncertain author. Confer.

...and 357 seq. I do not agree with Bartholomew Germon, who in his book *On Heretics, the Corrupters of Ecclesiastical Codexes*, page 305 seq., contends that the *Apology for Origen* held no parts of Pamphilus, but that this was a mere fraud by one who sold Eusebius’s work under Pamphilus’s name. Hebed Jesu, however, in his *Catalog of Chaldean Books*, page 19, mentions a book of Eusebius apologetic for a certain Origenist, who explained the Scriptures through allegories and was rebuked for this by Theodore. Concerning Antipater of Bostra’s *Refutation of Eusebius's Apology for Origen*, I shall speak later under Antipater.

XXII. Fourteen small works edited by Jacques Sirmond from two manuscripts of the monastery of Herival and St. Cornelius of Compiègne, *t. II Var. opusc.*, Paris. 1643, 8vo, from which they were reprinted in the *Bibl. Patrum* edition, Lyons, 1675, volume IV, and among Sirmond’s *Opera* t. I, Paris, 1696, folio.

A book against Sabellius, or rather homilies 1 and 2. In the former of these, Marcellus of Ancyra is criticized in these words, page 10: "The Father, who begat, is not made wretched by good offspring, He does not devour His own Son. We mock the fables of the gentiles, and we bring in the same again—not we, but he who dared to [do] so in Galatians. For God did not beget a voice, but the Son; not a word, but Life; not a saying, but God." In the latter, the memory of the blessed man is often praised, by whom Valesius understands Pamphilus, but the editors of Sirmond’s works more verisimilarly understand Agapetus, Eusebius’s predecessor.

On the resurrection and ascension, homilies 1 and 2, in the latter of which Saint Romanus is copiously celebrated, concerning whom Eusebius [speaks] in chapter 2 of *On the Martyrs of Palestine*, and in the homily of Eusebius Gallicanus, *t. VI Bibl. Patrum* ed. Lugd., page 671. Prudentius *Peristeph.*, hymn X, *Martyrologia* 18 Nov., etc. Fabr. Eusebius's homily on the Resurrection of Christ, Gr. and Lat. by Fr. Combefis, Paris, 1648, fol., in *Bibl. Græc. Lat. Petr. Auct. nov.*, col. 779. Eusebius’s bishop's speech on the commemoration of saints, interpreted by Car. Fabian, edited in part 1 of Thomas Galet’s books inscribed *Religiosas*, Lyons, 1615, 8vo; reprinted in *Bibl. PP.* Colon. 1622, volume XV; — in Lugdun. t. XXVII, ^B ...that a new Greek edition of this same *Life* was again given; that ancient Latin translation of the *Life*, divided into two books, is in an ancient vellum codex of the Imperial Library among the historical Latin codexes, from which Lambecius provided a long passage from the preface. The same, in the *Additamentum* (lib. iv, p. 482), teaches how much those things which are related in this codex and this narrative about the holy baptism of Constantine the Great differ from the account of Eusebius Pamphili in book IV of *On the Life of the same Emperor*. Eusebius Pamphili on theological ambiguities is in the book inscribed: *Translated by Georgius Valla*. Nicephorus Blemmydes’s *Logic*: a little book of G. Valla. *On Arguments*: Euclid’s Elements book XIV, etc. Venice, per Anton. de Strata 1488. Ibid. per Simon Papiensem, called Bevilaqua, 1498, fol. V. Fabr. *B. L. med. et infim. æt.*, edit. Mansi, tom. VI, p. 281. HARL.

^A Tenzel’s *Dissertationes selectæ*, p. 304 seq. They exist in Latin in Mombritius, vol. II, and others from Metaphrastes in Lipomannus, vol. V, and Surius for Dec. 31. Combefis also edited the *Acts of Sylvester and Constantine*, from which he repeats in his *Bibliotheca concionatoria*, vol. II, for the first Sunday of Lent, the disputation held against the Jews by Sylvester and Zambres in the presence of Constantine. From these, Zonaras and Cedrenus drew information, as did George Hamartolus and Simeon Logotheta in their manuscript Chronicles. See Du Cange on Zonaras, p. 28.

XXIV. Unpublished works. *Books of Prophetic Eclogues*, concerning which see above, no. II. See our annotation there. (EDIT. PATR.) *Fragment on Weights and Measures*. MSS of Isaac Vossius, no. 179. FABR. — It is in the Venetian codex of St. Mark. (See *Catalogus codicum Græcorum*, p. 261.) — Among the Vossian codices, no. MMCCXC (*Catalogus codicum Angliæ*, II, p. 62). A fragment of Eusebius on weights and measures. HARL. *On the Death of Herod*, MS in the Basil library. *Preface to the Canticle of Moses in Exodus*. Lambeck III, p. 35 (a).

XXV. Lost writings of Eusebius. Besides many parts of works already mentioned, the books of the *Ecclesiastical Preparation*, in which were the *Eclogues*. Photius, codex XI, where the number of books is missing. [The *Evangelical Theophany* is cited twice in a *Catena on Luke* in the Imperial Viennese codex XLII, according to Lambeck, *Commentarii*, vol. III, p. 166, note 4. Compare above, no. 8. HARL. Fragment from the lost work of Eusebius, the *Evangelical Theophany*, from the Coislin codex. Göttingen, 1740, 4.] (See our note, col. 23. EDIT.) Cave says that in the Bodleian library, codex Barocc. CXLVIII, there are nine homilies under the name of Eusebius, in memory of the saints, but they are spurious. However, ^B there exists only one there, which is inscribed as the ninth. FABR. See above, ad no. 23, concerning the homily noted *On the Resurrection*. Eusebius promised a work *Against Atheistic Heresies* at the end of book IV of the *Eclogues*, according to Lambeck, *Commentarii de bibliotheca Cæsarea*, p. 202. *The Prophecy of Eusebius of Caesarea and Brother Columbinus concerning certain events in the Christian world*, in Latin, as it seems, in the Bodleian library among the codices of Kenelm Digby, no. MDCCHIC, *Catalogus codicum*. In Anastasius’s *Questions and Answers*, from various parts of the Holy Scriptures, and in Nicon’s *Collections of Moral Matters* and other ancient Greek florilegia, Eusebian fragments occur here and there in the Coislin, Medicean, etc., codices. HARL.

(a) In a parchment codex of the 12th or 13th century in the library of the University of Louvain, 4° small, p. 37, it reads: "11 Homilies of Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, on Easter, very useful, translated from Greek into Latin." — Item, three sermons of the same on the Ascension of the Lord.

(The *General Elemental Introduction*. Above, no. 3.) *Books of the Ecclesiastical Demonstration*. Photius, codex XII. Colomesius thinks there were four books, because four books of *Prophetic Eclogues* exist in manuscript in the Viennese library: but at the end of the fourth book of those *Eclogues*, Eusebius explicitly states that this book is the ninth of the work. And one might more reasonably consider the *Prophetic Eclogues* as a part of the *General Elemental Introduction*, as I noted above, no. 3. Eusebius’s *Ecclesiastical Demonstration* is cited in the *Jus Græco-Romanum*, book IV, p. 295. *Thirty books against Porphyry for the Christian religion*. Suidas. Jerome mentions in chapter 81 of his *Catalogue* that only twenty of these reached him. Jerome also testifies in his commentary *On Daniel* that in the last three of these he refuted the arguments that the same Porphyry had made against the prophecies of Daniel. Elsewhere he counts 25 books, in his *Epistle to the Orator Magnus*. Socrates also praises it (II, 23, p. 200). "Many believe too rashly that this work is still preserved at Rome," says Holstenius in *De Porphyrii scriptis*, p. 65. Philostorgius (VI, 14) prefers Apollinaris to those things which Eusebius and Methodius wrote against Porphyry. [See vol. V, p. 747.] *Of Refutation and Apology, two books for the Christian religion against the objections of the heathens*, and other ^C two books of the same argument and almost the same in content and wording (perhaps another edition of the former). Photius, codex XIII. Valesius is mistaken, who confuses the books against Porphyry with these books. Nor is Cave less mistaken, who confuses with these the *Apologeticum* of Eusebius for his own faith, concerning which see above, no. 9. *Oration on the Jerusalem Basilica, the Savior's Sepulcher, and the ^D gifts dedicated there*, which the Emperor Constantine listened to standing, even though it was rather long. Eusebius, *Life of Constantine*, IV, 33. *A book on the Paschal Feast*, dedicated to the same Constantine, comprising a "mystical explanation of the doctrine of the feast," or the reasons for the nineteen-year cycle and the history of the controversy concerning Easter. Eusebius, *Life of Constantine*, IV, cap. 34 and 35, where there is the Emperor's letter to Eusebius, in which he thanks him and mentions a Latin interpreter who translates his writings into the Latin language. Saint Hippolytus, with his "sixteen-year cycle," had given Eusebius the occasion to compose his "nineteen-year cycle," according to Jerome, chapter 61 of the *Catalogue*. And thus must be interpreted Isidore of Seville (VI, 17, *Origines*) and Bede (*De temporum ratione*, cap. 42). [In the Cotton library, XIII, 12, p. 93, *Catalogus codicum Angliæ*, XII homilies of Eusebius of Caesarea on Easter.] Eusebius himself testifies that he wrote *On the Great Learning of the Ancients* in *Preparation for the Gospel*, VI, 8, p. 310. The same work, in which Basil *On the Holy Spirit*... — Item, two of the same *On the Holy Spirit*. The volume consists of two parts: the first part provides an index for the volume, the second part, which contained the homilies, is separated from the former and is no longer found. EDIT. PATR.

sancto, cap. 29, signifies that he has read his *Questions concerning the Polygamy of the Ancients*. Very many epistles, besides those mentioned above at num. 21, in all of which the Acts of the Nicene Council, act. vi, t. III, Bini's edition, page 662, argue he betrayed himself as a supporter of the Arians, and they charge him with the fault that, although he subscribed to the Nicene synod, ^A he is sometimes detected pretending to the truth, yet he did not publicly ask forgiveness for his writings and retract them, and instead of epistles specifically his own, he did not compose and publish an *Apology*.

53 A sermon concerning the lack of rain is mentioned by Hebed Jesu in the *Catalogue of Chaldean Books*, n. 20. [Fragment of Eusebius' *Song of Songs* edited by Munter, Fragm. Patr. Gr., I, p. 60 sq.; other fragments of the same, by Matthæi in *Anecdota*, Moscow, 1775. In Galland's *Bibl. PP.*, tom. IV, p. 459 sq., are fourteen short works of Eusebius Pamphili, first brought to light by Jac. Sirmond. Preceded by the same Eusebius' *Prooemium* and ch. I of the *Demonstratio Evangelica*, published together with the work's epilogue by J. A. Fabricius. In the *Prolegomena* to these, p. xx sq., Gallandus dealt with them briefly.]

OF THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS OF CAESAREA

Acacius, his disciple and successor in the bishopric of Caesarea, had formerly written a book on the life of Eusebius of Caesarea, as Socrates testifies. But since this book, along with many other historical records, has perished through neglect, we shall endeavor to repair that loss as best we can by collecting testimonies from here and there of ancient writers who have spoken of Eusebius. Therefore, Eusebius appears to have been born in Palestine toward the end of the reign of Gallienus. That he originated from Palestine is evidenced by the fact that he is almost universally called a Palestinian by the ancients. Certainly Basil, Theodoret, and others call him this. And although he could have been so named on account of his bishopric of the city of Caesarea, it seems more true to me that he derived that surname from his fatherland. Certainly he himself, in the first book ^B *Of the Life of Constantine*, testifies that he was educated and lived as an adolescent in Palestine, and that he saw Constantine there for the first time while he, in the retinue of Diocletian Augustus, was making a journey through Palestine. But also in the second book of the same work, where he relates a law of Constantine ^C which he wrote to the Palestinians for the Christians, he indicates not obscurely that he was a Palestinian. For after he cited the words of the law itself sent to the Palestinians, he adds this: *These were the first imperial letters sent to us.* As for my attributing his birth to the end of the times of Gallienus, I have Eusebius himself as the authority for this. For in the books of his *Ecclesiastical History*, speaking of Dionysius, bishop of the Alexandrians, he testifies that he lived in his own age, as can be seen in book VII, chapter 28. Wherefore, since it is established that Dionysius ^D of Alexandria passed from the living in the twelfth year of the principate of Gallienus, it must be that Eusebius had already been brought to light, if indeed his age fell during those times in which Dionysius lived. The same can also be gathered from the end of book V of the *Ecclesiastical History*, where, speaking of the heresy of Artemon, he writes that Paul of Samosata revived that heresy in his own time. Finally, in book VII, narrating things that occurred during the reign of Gallienus, before he institutes a discourse on the error and condemnation of Paul of Samosata, he uses these words: *But having set these things forth, let us now at length hand down to the notice of posterity what our age was and what it was like.* What parents he had is unknown to us, unless Nicephorus Callistus, following I know not what authors, reveals that he was born of the sister of Pamphilus the martyr. In the epistle, however, of Arius to Eusebius of Nicomedia, he is called *brother* of Eusebius of Nicomedia. And although he could have been called brother on account of friendship, it nevertheless seems truer to me that he was either a brother or a cousin of Eusebius of Nicomedia, especially since Arius, among many others commemorated there, calls one Caesarean "brother" of the Nicomedian. Then, Eusebius of Nicomedia originated from Syria. For he was first bishop of Berytus. Nor was it the custom then for outsiders and unknowns to be promoted to govern churches. What masters he had in secular disciplines, we are likewise ignorant. But in sacred letters he had as teacher Dorotheus the eunuch, a presbyter of the Church of Antioch: of whom he also makes honorable mention in book VII. Although Eusebius in that place only says that Dorotheus was heard by him while he was expounding sacred letters in the church not unsuitably. If, however, anyone from these words of Eusebius wishes to conclude with Trithemius that Eusebius was a disciple of Dorotheus, I for my part shall not greatly object.

At that time, upon the death of Theotecnus, Agapius was administering the bishopric of the Church of Caesarea, a man of exceptional holiness and boundless liberality to the poor. By him Eusebius was received into the clergy and entered into a very close friendship with Pamphilus, who at that time was prominent among the presbyters of the Church of Caesarea. Pamphilus was by nation a Phoenician, by home a Berytian; a disciple of Pierius, presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, as Photius writes. Who, with the sacred letters...

burning with singular love, and seeking out with the greatest zeal the books of all ecclesiastical writers and especially of Origen, founded a most famous school and library at Caesarea. Of this school Eusebius seems to have been the first master. Certainly, Eusebius writes clearly in his book ^A *On the Martyrs of Palestine* that Apphianus, who completed his martyrdom in the third year of the persecution, had been educated by him in the sacred letters in the city of Caesarea. From that time on, Eusebius lived most closely with Pamphilus and remained his inseparable companion until his death: so dear was he to him that from his friendship he earned the surname "Pamphili." Nor indeed did Eusebius love him with singular love only while he was alive, but also after he was dead: so that after the death of Pamphilus, he always spoke of him most honorably and lovingly. Three books *On the Life of Pamphilus the Martyr*, written by him, which Jerome calls most elegant, bear witness to this. The same is also gathered from many places which are read in the *Ecclesiastical History* and in the book *On the Martyrs of Palestine*. Finally, in the second book *Against Sabellius*, which was written by Eusebius after the Council of Nicaea, he frequently praises Pamphilus the martyr, although his name is suppressed. For even in the very beginning of the discourse he says: "I think my ears are still ringing with the memory of that blessed man, who often used that religious phrase. For your ears also still retain the sound of that voice. For I think I hear him saying: *The only-begotten Son of God.*" For this religious phrase was always brought forth through his lips. For it was a memorial of the Only-begotten to the glory of the unborn Father. "We have heard, however, the Apostle commanding that presbyters should be honored with double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine." And on page 29 he speaks of him again thus: "These things are not for our aggrandizement, the memory of that blessed man. Would that I could speak as I always heard from him in your presence. But those things which are now being said, seem to have been pleasing to him. For it is the glory of good servants to speak the truth about the Lord; and it is the honor of those Fathers who have taught well, if their doctrines are repeated." And again in the same book, page 37: "These things we always heard from that blessed man. For they were often said by him in such a way that some suspected he uttered these things with his mouth, but held otherwise in his heart. And indeed I am mindful for you that I heard from him, and he satisfied us with a holy oath, that it was not one thing on his tongue and another in his heart." And a little later: "But now indeed, let these things be said by us briefly for the memory and honor of that Father of ours, so good, so industrious, and so vigilant for the Churches everywhere. For we have not made a memorial of his lineage, nor of his upbringing, or learning, or of another life and purpose." Which places of Eusebius, that I might not defraud anyone of their due praise, were pointed out to me by the most learned man, Franciscus Ogerius. Moreover, from these things which I have said, it is sufficiently gathered that Eusebius was joined with Pamphilus by no right of kinship, but only by the bond of friendship. ^B Eusebius, who in so many places names Pamphilus and boasts so greatly of his friendship, never calls him his kinsman or relative. But indeed it is manifestly proven from the testimony of Eusebius himself that Pamphilus the martyr was not a relative of Eusebius. For at the end of the seventh book of the *Ecclesiastical History*, where he speaks about Agapius, bishop of the Church of Caesarea, he speaks thus: "In his time we came to know Pamphilus, a most learned man, and one who truly philosophized in his life and works; he was adorned with the honor of a presbyter in the same Church." Since, therefore, Eusebius himself testifies that Pamphilus was first known to him at that time, it is sufficiently apparent that they were joined together by no relationship or affinity.

Around these times, there occurred that most grave persecution of the Christians, which, having first begun under Diocletian, was extended by the succeeding emperors up to the tenth year (a). During the time of this persecution, Eusebius, as a presbyter of the Caesarean Church at that time, remained almost perpetually in that city and instructed many toward martyrdom with continuous exhortations. Among whom was Apphianus, a noble youth, whose illustrious struggle our Eusebius recounts in the book *On the Martyrs of Palestine*. In the same persecution, Pamphilus was captured and thrown into prison, and spent two whole years in chains. During which time, Eusebius by no means deserted his friend and companion; but visiting him assiduously, he worked out five books of the *Defense of Origen* in prison together with him; but he finally finished the sixth and last book of the same work after Pamphilus was dead. That whole work, indeed, was dedicated by Eusebius and Pamphilus to the confessors living in the mines of Palestine, just as Photius writes in his *Library*, chapter 118. During the time of the same persecution, on account of certain needs of the Church, as is credible, he set out for Tyre. While he was staying in that city, he testifies in book VI, chapter 7, that he saw for himself the glorious struggles of five Egyptian martyrs. But also in chapter 9 of the same book, he writes that he had come into Egypt and the Thebaid while the fury of the persecution was still raging; and there he saw with his own eyes the admirable constancy of many martyrs of both sexes. There are those who write that Eusebius, in order to be freed from the hardships of prison in that persecution, sacrificed to idols; and that was objected to him by the Egyptian bishops and confessors at the Synod of Tyre, as we shall commemorate below. But I do not doubt that this is false and concocted by the enemies of Eusebius. For if such a grave crime had really been committed by Eusebius, how would he afterwards have been made bishop of the Caesarean Church? How would he have been summoned by the Antiochians to undertake the priesthood of that city? And yet Cardinal Baronius seized upon that as something certain and settled, which was objected to Eusebius through strife and altercation by his adversaries, and confirmed by no one’s testimony. About the same time, the book was written by Eusebius.

^A against Hierocles. The cause of the writing was provided by Hierocles of Nicomedia, who, at the beginning of that persecution, when the churches of the Christians were being destroyed everywhere, as if insulting the afflicted religion, published two books against the faith of Christ in the city of Nicomedia, which he had titled *Philalethes*. In these he asserted, among other things, that Apollonius of Tyana had done much more and greater things than Christ, as Lactantius testifies in book VII. But Eusebius, despising the man, was content to refute him in a short book.

In the meantime, Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, having died when the persecution had already abated and peace had been returned to the Church, Eusebius was substituted in his place by the common consent of all. Others place Agricola as the successor of Agapius, who attended and subscribed to the synod of Ancyra in the year of Christ 314. Thus Baronius in his *Annals* for the year of Christ 314, and Blondell in his *Apology for the opinion of St. Jerome*, ch. 19, where he writes that Eusebius undertook the administration of the Caesarean Church after the death of Agricola in about the year of Christ 315. But those subscriptions of the bishops which are found in the Latin collections of the Canons seem to me little certain or firm. For they are read neither in the Greek codices nor in the Latin version of Dionysius Exiguus. Furthermore, Eusebius, in book VII of his *Ecclesiastical History*, enumerating the bishops of the principal sees under whom the persecution arose and raged, ends with Agapius, bishop of the Caesareans, whom he says labored much for the interests of his Church during that persecution. Therefore, it is necessary that he remained until the end of the persecution. Yet Eusebius became bishop immediately after the end of the persecution. For when Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, dedicated a basilica shortly after peace was restored to the Church, Eusebius was called forth by Paulinus along with the other bishops to its dedication, and he delivered a most elegant oration before him, as we learn from book X of his *Ecclesiastical History*. That, however, happened before Licinius rebelled against Constantine, which occurred in the year of our Lord 315. Around these times Eusebius composed those distinguished books, the *Demonstration* and the *Evangelical Preparation*. That these were indeed written before the Council of Nicaea is certain, since they are cited by name in the *Ecclesiastical History*, which was written by Eusebius before that council, as we have shown in the annotations. Meanwhile, Licinius, who was administering the Republic in the eastern parts, suddenly incited by fury, began to persecute the Christians, and especially the bishops, whom he suspected of favoring Constantine more and making vows for him. But Constantine, having undertaken an expedition against Licinius, in a short time compelled him, conquered on land and sea in two battles, to surrender. And thus peace was restored anew by Constantine to the Christians dwelling in the East.

But among the Christians themselves, a far more serious tumult flared up at that same time. For Arius, a presbyter of the city of Alexandria, ^B when he published certain new and impious dogmas about the Son of God publicly in the Church, and was frequently admonished by Bishop Alexander, yet nevertheless persisted in those same assertions, was at length condemned along with his companions in error, and had been excluded from the Church. Bearing this condemnation with difficulty, he sent letters with a copy of his faith to all the bishops of the neighboring cities, in which he complained that he had been unjustly deposed by Alexander, since he himself preached the same things that the rest of the prelates of the East preached. Deceived by these arts, many bishops, and especially incited by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who openly favored the party of Arius, wrote letters on behalf of Arius to Alexander, the prelate of the city of Alexandria, praying that he would restore Arius to his former position. Of their number was our Eusebius, whose letters written to Alexander exist in the Acts of the seventh ecumenical synod, and have been related by us among the testimonies of the ancients. Theodotus and Paulinus, the one bishop of Laodicea, the other of the Tyrians, soon followed the example of Eusebius of Caesarea, and interceded with Alexander for the restoration of Arius. Since Arius was displaying their epistles everywhere—for they patronized his dogmas—and was drawing many into the fellowship of his error by the authority of such great men, ^C Alexander himself was also compelled to send letters to the remaining bishops of the East, by which it might be made manifest that Arius had been justly condemned and deposed along with his companions. There exist today two letters of Alexander: the other to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, in which Alexander complains of three bishops of Syria, who, consenting to Arius, had inflamed the contention they ought rather to have settled. These are Eusebius, Theodotus, and Paulinus, as may be gathered from the letter of Arius written to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Socrates reports the other letter of Alexander, given to all the bishops of the world, in book 1. Almost all the bishops of the East subscribed to these letters of Alexander; among whom the foremost places were held by Philogonius of Antioch, Eustathius of Beroea, and Macarius, the prelates of Jerusalem. But those bishops who seemed to stand on the side of Arius, when they saw themselves constricted by the letters of Alexander, labored much more sharply and vehemently ^D for the defense of Arius: especially Eusebius of Nicomedia. For our Eusebius of Caesarea, together with Patrophilus and Paulinus, and other bishops of Syria, decided only this, that it should be permitted to Arius the presbyter to hold assemblies in his own church; he should, however, remain subject to Bishop Alexander, and from him he should demand to be admitted to peace and communion. With the bishops thus dissenting among themselves, and some fostering the parts of Alexander and others those of Arius, the contention was exacerbated beyond measure. To remedy this evil, Constantine gathered a general synod of bishops, such as no age had ever seen, from the whole Roman world in the Bithynian city of Nicaea. Of this greatest and most celebrated council, no small part was Euse-

^Abius our own. For he obtained the first place on the right side, and addressed Emperor Constantine, who sat in a golden chair between the two ranks of those seated, in the name of the entire synod, as he himself testifies in the opening of Book 1 of *The Life of Constantine*, and in the second book of the same work. Sozomen confirms the same in Book 1 of his *Ecclesiastical History*. Furthermore, when there was great controversy among the bishops concerning the formula of faith, our Eusebius proposed a formula that was very correct and simple, and which was praised by the consensus of all the bishops, and indeed by the emperor himself. But since that formula seemed to lack something for the refutation of the impiety of the new dogma, the Fathers of the Nicene synod decided that these additional expressions should be added: "True God from true God; begotten, not made, one in being (consubstantial) with the Father." They also added anathemas against those who would say that the Son of God was made from things that were not, or that there was a time when he was not. And at the beginning, indeed, our Eusebius refused to admit the term *consubstantial* (consubstantialem). ^B But later, being instructed by the other bishops as to what the force and meaning of this word were, he finally consented to this faith and subscribed to it, just as he relates himself in his letter to the Caesareans. Some assert that Eusebius was forced by necessity, and out of fear of the emperor rather than from the conviction of his own mind, to subscribe to the Nicene faith. I, for my part, could easily believe this concerning others who were present at this synod. But concerning Eusebius of Caesarea, I cannot think so. For Eusebius, after the Nicene synod, always condemned those who said that the Son of God was made from nothing, as is evident from his books against Marcellus, and specifically in chapters 9 and 10 of Book 1 of *Ecclesiastical Theology*. Athanasius also testifies the same about him. Although he mentions very often that Eusebius of Caesarea subscribed to the Nicene synod, he never reveals that it was done by him feignedly and merely in outward appearance. Certainly, if Eusebius had subscribed to the Nicene council not from his heart, but through fraud and simulation, why would he have later sent that letter—which I mentioned—to the Caesareans, in which he frankly professed that he had embraced that faith which had been set forth in the Nicene council?

After the Nicene synod, the Arians were quiet for a time out of fear of the emperor. Soon, having regained confidence when they ^C had cunningly crept into the emperor’s friendship, they began to persecute the Catholic prelates by all manners and artifices. The first of their attacks fell upon Eustathius, bishop of the city of Antioch, who was illustrious for the glory of his confession and was considered foremost among the defenders of the Nicene faith. They accused him before the emperor, claiming that he established the impiety of Sabellius and that he had treated the emperor’s mother, the Augusta Helena, with insults. A huge assembly of bishops took place in the city of Antioch, over which Eusebius of Nicomedia presided, the author and standard-bearer of the entire faction. Eusebius of Caesarea was also present at this synod. Therefore, Eustathius was accused by Cyrus, bishop of Beroea, of teaching the impious doctrine of Sabellius, and for this reason, he was deposed from his see ^D on the charge of fornication. On account of this, a very serious disturbance was excited at Antioch; the people were divided into two parts, with some demanding that Eusebius of Caesarea be substituted in Eustathius’s place, and others demanding that Eustathius be returned to them as their bishop. They would have come to blows, had not the fear of the emperor and the authority of the judges restrained them. The sedition finally being quieted, and Eustathius being sent into exile, our Eusebius—even though he was asked by both the people and the bishops who were present to undertake the administration of the Church of Antioch—refused to do so. And when the bishops had sent letters to Constantine, conveying both their own suffrage and that of the entire populace, Eusebius also sent his own letter to Constantine. Replying to these, Emperor Constantine greatly praised Eusebius’s counsel.

Eustathius being deposed in this manner—which I observed in the Annotations to have taken place in the year of Christ 330—the Arians turned the impetus of their fury against Athanasius. At first, indeed, they accused his ordination before the emperor; then, that he exacted a tax of linen garments from the provincials; that he had broken a sacred chalice; and, finally, that he had killed a certain bishop named Arsenius. Therefore, Constantine, exhausted by their most troublesome accusations, summoned a council in the city of Tyre and ordered Bishop Athanasius to come there to defend his case. In that synod, Eusebius of Caesarea sat as a judge among the others, whom Constantine had wished to participate in that council. Potamo, the bishop of Heracleopolis, having caught sight of him sitting in the council—who had arrived there with Bishop Athanasius and several priests of Egypt—is said to have addressed him with these words: "Do you, Eusebius, sit, and is the innocent Athanasius to stand to be judged by you? Who could endure this? Were you not in custody with me during the time of the persecution? And I indeed lost an eye for the sake of the truth; you are not mutilated in any part of your body, nor did you undergo martyrdom, but you remain alive and whole. By what reasoning did you escape from prison, unless you promised our persecutors that you would commit a nefariuos act, and perhaps even did so?" Epiphanius relates this in the heresy of the Meletians. From which it appears, by the way, that they are mistaken who write that our Eusebius once sacrificed to idols, ^D and that this was openly cast against him in the Tyrian synod. For Potamo did not accuse Eusebius of having offered to idols, but only that, having been released from prison safe and sound, he provided an occasion for such a suspicion about him. It may be, however, that Eusebius was released from prison in some other manner than that which Potamo reported. Moreover, from the words of Epiphanius, it seems to be inferred that Eusebius of Caesarea presided over this synod. For he adds that Eusebius, having heard these things, was gravely moved and dismissed the council. From other writers, however, we have found that it was not the Caesarean, but the Nicomedian Eusebius who presided over the synod of Tyre. After the council held at Tyre, all the bishops

^A who had gathered there repaired by the emperor’s command to Jerusalem, to celebrate the dedication of that great basilica which Constantine had built there in honor of Christ. There, our Eusebius adorned the festival with various discourses delivered in the church. And when the emperor had summoned the bishops to his court by most urgent letters, so that they might render an account of the things they had perpetrated against Athanasius through fraud and faction, our Eusebius, along with five others, came to Constantinople and informed the prince about all that had occurred. At that time, too, he delivered his tricennial oration before the emperor himself in the palace. The emperor listened to this with the greatest joy, not so much for his own praise as for the praises of God, whom Eusebius had celebrated throughout that whole speech. Eusebius testifies in his book *On the Life of Constantine* that this second oration was delivered in the palace. For previously, he had delivered an oration on the Lord’s Sepulcher in the palace; the emperor had listened to it while standing, and would never, even though invited once or twice by Eusebius to sit in a chair placed for him, consent to do so, saying that discourses about God should be heard by those who are standing, as Eusebius relates in chapter 33 of the same book.

Furthermore, how dear and acceptable our Eusebius was to Constantine, it is possible to understand both from what I have said and from many other things. For he often received letters from him, which are read in the aforementioned books. Nor was he rarely summoned to the palace, entertained at the banquet, and honored with familiar conversation. Indeed, Constantine even related to our Eusebius that vision of the cross which he had seen in the sky when he was setting out against Maxentius; and he showed him the Labarum, which he had fashioned according to the likeness of that cross, just as Eusebius himself testifies. And when he had need of sacred codices for the use of the churches he had built in Constantinople, he entrusted the care and diligence of transcribing them to Eusebius, since he knew him to be most expert in these matters. Finally, when our Eusebius had dedicated to his name the book *On the Paschal Festival*, that gift was so pleasing to Constantine that he ordered that book to be translated immediately into the Latin tongue, and in letters written to Eusebius, he encouraged him to share the works of this kind that he had in hand with those ^B who are studious of sacred things as soon as possible.

Around the same time, Eusebius dedicated to the prince Constantine a description of the Jerusalem basilica and the offerings that had been consecrated there, contained in a brief treatise. This, indeed, along with the tricennial oration, he had appended to the end of the books *On the Life of Constantine*. But this book does not exist today. At the same time also, the five books *Against Marcellus* were written by Eusebius: the last three of which, *On Ecclesiastical Theology*, he inscribed to Flaccillus, bishop of the Antiochians. Flaccillus began his episcopate a little before the synod of Tyre, ^C which was assembled in the consulship of Constantius and Albinus, in the year of our Lord 335. Certainly, Eusebius writes expressly in his book *Against Marcellus on Ecclesiastical Theology*, chapter 14, that Marcellus was justly condemned by the Church. Marcellus was first condemned at the synod of Constantinople by those very bishops who had dedicated the Constantinian basilica in Jerusalem—that is, in the year of Christ 335, or certainly 336, as Baronius prefers. And Socrates, indeed, recognizes only three books of Eusebius *Against Marcellus*, namely those which are inscribed *On Ecclesiastical Theology*, although the whole work *Against Marcellus* is comprised of five books by Eusebius.

Furthermore, of all Eusebius’s books, the four *On the Life of the Emperor Constantine* seem to be the last. For they were written after the death of that emperor, to whom Eusebius did not long survive. He died at the beginning of the reign of Constantius Augustus, shortly before the death of Constantine the Younger, which occurred in the consulship of Acindynus and Proclus, in the year of Christ 340, as is gathered from the second book of Socrates. But what Scaliger says in his *Eusebian Annotations* (last edition, page 250), that Eusebius’s books against Porphyry were written under Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, cannot be so easily admitted by us, since it is confirmed by the testimony of no ancient writer. But in what Scaliger subjects in the same place, that the three final books of the *Evangelical Demonstration*, namely the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth, were written by Eusebius against Porphyry, he is clearly hallucinating. Jerome does indeed write that Eusebius responded to Porphyry in three volumes—that is, the XVIII, XIX, and XX—who in the twelfth and thirteenth books of those he published against the Christians had attempted to invalidate the book of the prophet Daniel. But Jerome does not mean the books of Eusebius’s *Evangelical Demonstration*, as Scaliger thought, but books elaborated by him against Porphyry, which were inscribed *Refutation and Apology*, as can be gathered from the *Bibliotheca* of Photius. ^D Moreover, I am of the opinion that these books were written by Eusebius after his *Ecclesiastical History*. And I conjecture this from the fact that our Eusebius, in the sixth book of his *Ecclesiastical History*, where he introduces an illustrious passage from the third book of Porphyry’s *Against the Christians*, makes no mention of those books by which he himself had answered Porphyry, although he is accustomed to be a diligent praiser of his own works and often refers the studious to their reading.

But since an opportune occasion offers itself, it is pleasing to note here a few things about the books of the *Ecclesiastical History*. It is for their sake, above all, that this whole study of ours has been undertaken. Many things were indeed written by our Eusebius for the utility of the Catholic Church and to confirm the truth of the Christian faith, partly against the Jews and partly against the gentiles. Among all his books, however, the *Ecclesiastical History* rightfully bears the palm. For many, before Eusebius, had written in defense of the Christian faith...

and had refuted the obstinacy of the Jews and the error of the gentiles with most powerful arguments. But there had existed no one before Eusebius to hand down a history of ecclesiastical affairs to posterity. On this account, our Eusebius is all the more to be praised, who both first conceived this subject-matter and, when he had undertaken it, left it complete in every respect. Certainly, though many have since been found who, spurred on by his example, undertook to commit ecclesiastical matters to writing, all of them have begun their history from those times at which our Eusebius had ended his work; but the history of the earlier times, which he had set forth in ten books, they left to him, whole and untouched. Wherefore, if anyone should wish to call him the Father and founder of ecclesiastical history, he would seem ^B truly not to propose that title absurdly nor undeservedly. And in what manner Eusebius came to this subject, it is not difficult to conjecture. For when in the final part of his *Chronological Canons* he had accurately noted the time of the advent of our Lord and His Passion, and had also set out in their proper time and order the names of the bishops who had sat in the four principal Sees, and the illustrious men who had flourished in the Church, and finally the heresies and persecutions by which the Church had been vexed, he was gradually, as if led by the hand, brought to the writing of an ecclesiastical history: so that what he had brushed upon as a sort of compendium in his *Chronological Canons*, he might treat more broadly and abundantly in his *Ecclesiastical History*. He himself indeed openly indicates what I have said in the preface of his *Ecclesiastical History*. There he also asks for pardon from fair-minded readers, if perhaps he has performed this task less than perfectly: for he was the very first to approach this genre of writing, and he began to tread a path not yet beaten by the footprints of anyone. But this might seem to some not so much an excuse and a request for pardon, as a reaching for praise and glory. Furthermore, although it is certain from the testimony of Eusebius himself ^C that the *Ecclesiastical History* was written by him after the *Chronological Canons*, it is nonetheless surprising that both works proceed to one and the same goal, namely the twentieth year of Constantine, which was the year of Christ 325. Something else one finds surprising is that, although the synod of Nicaea was celebrated at the vicennalia of Constantine, no mention of it is made, neither in the *Chronicle* nor in the *Ecclesiastical History*. For as to the fact that in his Latin *Chronicle* these words are read at the fifteenth year of Constantine: "Alexander is ordained the nineteenth bishop of the Alexandrian Church, by whom the presbyter Arius is cast out of the Church, and unites many to his impiety. To refute whose perfidy, a synod of 318 bishops was gathered in the city of Nicaea in Bithynia, which destroyed all the machines of the heretics by the opposition of the *Homousios*," it is sufficiently clear that these things were not written by Eusebius, but were added by Jerome, who interpolated the Eusebian *Chronicle* with many things of his own. For to omit the fact that the commemoration of the synod ^D is here placed in an alien location, who would ever believe that Eusebius spoke of Arius in such a way, or had inserted the word *Homousios* into his *Chronicle*, which as we shall see later, always displeased him? How could Eusebius have said that three hundred and eighteen bishops attended the Nicene synod, when in the third book of his *Life of Constantine* he writes most explicitly that slightly more than two hundred and fifty sat in it? I do not doubt, however, that the *Ecclesiastical History* was finished by Eusebius some years after the Nicene synod. But because Eusebius had decided to conclude his History with that peace which had shone from heaven upon the Church after the persecution of Diocletian, as he himself testifies in the preface of his work, he deliberately avoided a commemoration of the Nicene synod, lest he be forced to expose the seditions and tumults of bishops warring among themselves. Indeed, writers of history ought to take particular care and provide that they conclude their work with an illustrious and glorious outcome, just as Dionysius of Halicarnassus advised long ago in his comparison of Herodotus and Thucydides. For what event could be desired by Eusebius more illustrious than that peace which, after the most bloodthirsty persecution, had been restored to the Christians by Constantine, when, with the persecutors extinguished everywhere, and finally with Licinius himself removed, no fear of past evils remained? By this peace, therefore, Eusebius preferred to end his history, rather than with a commemoration of the Nicene synod. For by that synod, as it seemed, discords were not so much settled as renewed. And that was not the fault of the synod itself, but of the stubborn obstinacy of those who refused to acquiesce to the most wholesome decrees of the sacrosanct council. And let these things said by us concerning the life and writings of Eusebius suffice. It remains that we say a few things about his faith and ὀρθοδοξίᾳ. And first I would wish the readers to be warned not to expect from us here a defense of Eusebius. For it is not for us to pronounce on matters of this kind, since we ought rather to follow the judgment of the Church and the opinion of the ancient Fathers in these things. Accordingly, we shall here note only certain chapters, relying upon which as if upon foundations, we might be able to determine more certainly concerning the faith of Eusebius.

Since, therefore, there are varying opinions of the ancients concerning our Eusebius, and some have judged him a Catholic, others a heretic; and some have considered him δίγλωττον, that is, of a doubtful and ambiguous faith, it must be inquired by us to which opinion we ought most especially to accede. It is a constant rule of law that in doubtful matters one ought rather to embrace the more equitable and milder opinion. Furthermore, since all the Westerners, with one exception—Jerome—have thought honorably of our Eusebius, and since the Gallican Church has inscribed him in the number of the saints, as is gathered from Victorius of Aquitaine, Usuard, and others, it is undoubtedly better that we should subscribe to the judgment of our Fathers rather than to that of the Eastern schismatics. Finally, whose authority in this matter ought to be greater than that of the Roman pontiffs? And yet Gelasius in the book *De duabus naturis*

refers to our Eusebius among the Catholic writers and has cited testimonies from his books. Pelagius the Pope, moreover, names him among the most honorable historians and declares him free from the stain of every heresy, even though he had extolled the heretic Origen with the highest praise. But someone will say that the judgment of the Orientals should rather be followed, since the Orientals, as people of his own language, were better able to know Eusebius. But it can be answered that there are not wanting some among the Orientals who have felt favorably regarding our Eusebius. Among these are Socrates and Gelasius of Cyzicus. But if the judgment of the seventh ecumenical council is set against us, the answer is ready. For it was not a matter of Eusebius’s faith in that synod, but of the veneration of images. When the adversaries, who had gathered shortly before in the Imperial City to overthrow this, produced testimony from Eusebius's letter to Constantia and relied chiefly upon it, the Fathers of the seventh synod, to diminish the authority of this testimony, exclaimed that Eusebius had been an Arian. But that was done by them only in passing, by occasion and from hatred of that letter, and not deliberately or because the case had been previously examined. They indeed produce certain passages from Eusebius, by which they prove that he adhered to the Arian dogma. But they make no distinction between the books written before the Council of Nicaea and those that were elaborated by Eusebius after that council, which nevertheless ought to have been done entirely so that a certain and legitimate judgment of Eusebius's faith might be earned. For whatever things were written before the Nicene synod ought not to be objected to and imputed as a charge against Eusebius. Furthermore, the letter of Eusebius to Alexander, in which he intercedes for Arius, was written without doubt before the Nicene synod. Therefore that testimony of the Fathers of the seventh synod against Eusebius, although it has the greatest authority, nevertheless seems to us a prejudice rather than a synodal judgment. But let it be permitted to the Greeks to feel thus about our Eusebius and call him kin to the Arian heresy, or even an Arian. Yet who can patiently bear Jerome, who, not content to call him a heretic and an Arian, names him more than once the standard-bearer of the Arians? Can he who persistently condemned the Arian dogma after the Nicene synod be deservedly called the standard-bearer of the Arians? Let his books *On Ecclesiastical Theology* be read, which he wrote against Marcellus long after the Council of Nicaea. We shall find that which I have said, that those were condemned by him who would say that the Son of God was made from non-existence, and that there was a time when He was not. Athanasius also testifies the same thing about Eusebius in his *Epistle on the Decrees of the Council of Nicaea*, in these words: "And indeed he was unfortunate in this. For, in order to clear himself, he subsequently accused the Arians, because by saying that the Son of God did not exist before He was begotten, they in this way denied that He existed before the incarnation." And Athanasius indeed, who harbored private enmities with Eusebius, offers this testimony to Eusebius. But Jerome, who had no cause for hatred against Eusebius, nay rather, who had profited so much from his writings; who had translated his Chronical Canon and his book *On Hebrew Place-Names* into the Latin tongue, defames this Eusebius with an epithet that not even his most intense enemies ever attributed to him. I cannot find a cause for this thing, unless it be that Jerome, having taken up hatred against Origen, has persecuted all defenders of his dogmas, and especially our Eusebius, immoderately. It must indeed be confessed that our Eusebius, although he cannot be deservedly called the standard-bearer of the Arians, nevertheless was constantly in the company of the Arian leaders after the Nicene synod, and together with them attacked the Catholic bishops, namely Eustathius and Athanasius, the chief defenders of the *Homousios*. ^B That also seems to be blameworthy in Eusebius, that although he always asserted the eternity of the Son of God against the Arians, he nevertheless never approved the word *HOMOUSIOS* from his heart. Certainly neither in the books against Marcellus, nor in the orations on the faith against Sabellius, did he ever use that word. Nay rather, in the second book against Sabellius, he signifies not obscurely that that word, as being one which is not read in the Scriptures, is displeasing to him. For he says thus: "As therefore it is slothful not to seek concerning those things which can be sought, so it is audacious to seek those things which it is not necessary to seek. What things, therefore, ought to be sought? Those which we find placed in the Scriptures. But those which we do not find in the Scriptures, let us not seek. For if it were necessary for these to be known to us, the Holy Spirit would in any case have placed them in the Scriptures." And some time after these things, he has: "We shall not thus be in peril, but let us speak cautiously. But if anything is written, let it not be deleted." And at the end of the oration he speaks thus: "Say what is written, and leave the rest be." ^C By which words Eusebius without doubt slights the *HOMOUSION*. But now, if it pleases, let us hear the testimonies of the ancients regarding Eusebius. In which this is most to be observed, that although there were various judgments of men regarding our Eusebius, as far as the purity of ecclesiastical dogmas is concerned, yet all have with one consent attributed to him the praise of the highest erudition. One of the fathers ^D within recollection was Joseph Scaliger, who, carried away by a certain headlong audacity and lust for reviling, attempted to take away from him this glory of doctrine, which not even the adversaries of Eusebius ever envied him. If anyone desires to know his words, we have placed them among the testimonies of the ancients, not because we count his judgment as having great weight in this part especially, but for this reason instead, that his importunate reviling might be submitted to the eyes of all. For when he had undertaken to write Commentaries on the Chronical Canon of Eusebius, at the very beginning of the work he criticizes Jerome because he called Eusebius a most learned man. And in the beginning I had indeed determined to argue at length against Scaliger, and to overturn his opinion with a more prolix response. But since that matter is one requiring more leisure, and perhaps would have brought weariness to the readers, it shall be deferred to another more opportune time.