Eusebius, Bishop of Emesa

to enter the yoke of detachment, so that by bearing to the end the gentle yoke of self-restraint, you may attain the heavenly kingdom, which may we all be granted to attain by the grace and loving-kindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, with whom to the Father together with the Holy Spirit be glory, power, and honor, now and always and unto the ages of ages. Amen. ^A

EUSEBIUS EMESENUS BISHOP. NOTICE.

(ANG. MAI, Biblioth. nov. t. II, 528.)

Regarding Eusebius of Emesa, and how he must by all means be distinguished from Eusebius of Alexandria, I have discoursed sufficiently, I hope, in the preceding Monitum (above col. 287 and 311). Now it pleases me to advise the readers that I have seen in the Vatican Library a very ancient Latin manuscript, of approximately the 11th century, containing thirty-four homilies with this title: *Incipit liber domni Eusebii, qui translatus est ex Hebræo in Latinum* (Here begins the book of Lord Eusebius, which has been translated from the Hebrew into Latin). Furthermore, these homilies, with the exception of the fourteenth and fifteenth, are all read under the name of Eusebius Gallicanus in the *Patrum Bibliotheca Lugdunensi*, vol. VI. However, where there is a lacuna in the edition on page 631 G, in our codex, leaf 49b, it is filled thus: "again may virginity be made fruitful, again may human nature be born from incorruption, so that man may have a glorious and virginal birth, etc." But the second lacuna in the same place cannot be filled with the help of the codex, because the leaf has fallen out. Now, I intend later, if it is worth the effort, to give an account of two of the codex's homilies which I said were missing in the edition, and which were recited on the feast of Easter, when I commit to type other homilies of the Latin Fathers, which I am collecting from manuscripts. These homilies of Eusebius are therefore said to be translated from the "Hebrew" (that is, from the Syriac). And indeed, Socrates (Hist. II, 9) and Sozomenus (III, 6) relate to us that Eusebius (who was later bishop of Emesa) was born in Mesopotamia and educated in the school of the Syrians at Edessa. Finally, it is not the place here to make a judgment on these homilies—now in the Latin tongue—of which there was certainly not one single author; and while the Emesene is not to be denied, no Gallican author is to be excluded either; a controversy which learned men have long debated.

SECOND NOTICE.

(JOS. FESSLER, Institutiones Patrologica, t. II, p. 2.)

Eusebius, bishop of Emesa (in the year 360), wrote many and varied works, among which were included for the explanation of Holy Scripture an *Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians* comprised in ten books, and *Short, but very numerous, Homilies on the Gospels* (St. Jerome, *De Scriptor. eccles.* c. 91), as well as a *Commentary on Genesis*, of which only certain fragments are found today in the Catenae. Some small Greek works, which exist today under his name—namely, the *Oration on the Advent and Annunciation of John the Baptist in Hades*, the *Oration on the Betrayal of Judas*, the *Oration on Good Friday* or *Kata-syllogismos against the Jews*, and fragments from his lost works—scattered here and there, were collected into one and edited in Greek by C. G. Augusti under the title: *Eusebii Emeseni quæ supersunt Opuscula Græca* (Elberfeld, 1829). However, those works, as J. C. Thilo has recently demonstrated convincingly (*Ueber die Schriften des Eusebius von Alexandrien und des Eusebius von Emisa*, Halle 1832), have as their author a certain later Eusebius of Alexandria, who lived in the sixth century. Under the name of the same Eusebius of Emesa, a double collection of Latin sermons has been circulated for some centuries, namely, 56 *Homilies to the people and monks* (first edited under his name by J. Gagneius, Paris 1547 in 8vo, reprinted at Louvain 1560).

and 12), and the 145 (or rather 142) Homilies on the Gospels and the feast days of the whole year (first published by Claude Fremy, Paris, 1554, 8vo; both collections were then reprinted, Paris, 1575, 8vo, and again somewhat augmented by A. Schott under the name of Eusebius Gallicanus in the *Magna Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensis*, vol. V, pp. 543-738, and in the *Maxima Bibliotheca Patrum Lugdunensis*, vol. VI, pp. 618-822). But the 145 (or rather 142) Homilies on the Gospels essentially belong to St. Bruno of Asti († c. 1125), from whose Commentary on the Four Gospels (published at Rome in 1775 in two volumes 8vo, and again in the *Opera* of St. Bruno of Asti ed. P. Bruno Bruni, Rome 1789-91, fol. vol. II, pp. 1-295) these Homilies were for the most part verbatim, and in all likelihood by Bruno himself, excerpted; they are also found complete, labeled with his name, in many manuscripts, as well as in the edition of the Works of St. Bruno of Asti, Venice 1651, fol. vol. II, pp. 1ff., and Rome 1789-91, vol. II, pp. 373-463. Cf. the Editor's Preface to St. Bruno's Commentary on the Gospels, pp. XVI-XXIII; and the Approbation of the illustrious Mamachius prefixed to the same, M. Marchesi's *Dissertatio historica de S. Brunone Astensi* p. iv. at the beginning of the 1651 Venice edition, and P. Bruno Bruni in the Works of St. Bruno of Asti, Rome edition, vol. II, Prolegomena pp. v and vii-ix. The former collection of 56 homilies is nothing but a medley of various Latin writers of Gaul—St. Hilary of Arles, St. Eucherius of Lyon, Faustus of Riez, St. Maximus of Turin, St. Caesarius, and others—perhaps collected by Eusebius Bruno, Bishop of Angers (1047-1081, concerning whom see the *Chronica Andegavensia* in Labbe, *Nova Bibliotheca Manuscriptorum*, Paris 1657, vol. I, pp. 276, 282, 287, and 288. Cf. J. A. Fabricius, *Bibliotheca mediae et infimae Latinitatis*, vol. I, p. 289). Nor is it an improbable conjecture that St. Bruno of Asti and Bruno of Angers, being contemporaries, could easily have been confused with one another (as is apparent from Aubertus Miraeus in J. A. Fabricius' *Bibliotheca ecclesiastica*, p. 57), especially if Eusebius Bruno of Angers himself collected those 56 earlier homilies, who for that reason has rightly been called Eusebius Gallicanus. As for the fact that all those roughly 200 homilies were attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, it seems to have come about because some clever scholar found only the name of Eusebius inscribed on them, and since it was established for him by Jerome that Eusebius of Emesa left behind "many Homilies on the Gospels," he assumed they were Emesene and rashly added his name. The one difficulty this conjecture creates is that, already at the end of the 11th century, certain passages from the 5th Homily on Easter are quoted under the name of Eusebius of Emesa by Guitmund of Aversa in his three books *De Veritate Eucharistiae* (Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. IV, Paris 1586, cols. 249, 263, 291-92) and by Ivo of Chartres in Letter 284 (*Ivonis Epistolae*, Paris 1585, p. 235b), and so the error must have arisen while Eusebius Bruno was still alive. Casimir Oudin, who in his *Commentarius de scriptoribus ecclesiasticis* (vol. I, cols. 389-426) inserted a very learned dissertation on the writings up to then wrongly attributed to Eusebius of Emesa, strives with the greatest zeal to assert that the 56 homilies (and 18 others, which A. Schott appended to them in the *Magna Bibliotheca Patrum Coloniensis*) belong to Faustus, Bishop of Riez in the 5th century. Others have suspected that the 14 short works commonly attributed to Eusebius of Caesarea have Eusebius of Emesa as their author instead (G. Cave, vol. I, pp. 183 and 207: Cf. Oudin, vol. I, cols. 423-24); others at least wished to vindicate for Eusebius of Emesa the two books *De fide adversus Sabellium*, found among those 14 pieces (J. C. Thilo, op. cited above, pp. 64-79). Cf. besides the authors already cited, Tillemont, vol. VI, *Les Ariens*, art. 31 (pp. 313-15); J. A. Fabricius, *Bibliotheca Graeca*, vol. VII, pp. 412-14; and the same's *Bibliotheca mediae et infimae Latinitatis*, vol. II, pp. 126-28; Ceillier, vol. VI, cap. 3, nos. 5-6 (pp. 15-18); Augusti in *Eusebii Emis. Opuscula*, pp. 59-101. Loc. citat. p. 810, FESSLER adds this: If there were room here for conjecture, it would not be entirely alien to attribute the homilies circulated under the name of Eusebius of Emesa—or at least a part of them—to Salvian, who loved to write under a feigned Greek name and, according to Gennadius, published many homilies on behalf of bishops in his perhaps already advanced age (470-80), so that he could easily have inserted into his collection sermons of Faustus of Riez, St. Eucherius of Lyon, and others, unless perhaps one prefers to conjecture that the homilies of other authors were mixed into a primitive collection by a strange hand in a later age.

J. CHRISTIANI GUIL. AUGUSTI, PHIL. ET THEOL. DOCT., EJUSDEMQUE IN UNIV. BORUSS. RHEN. P. P. O. P. IN EUSEBIUM EMESENUM ANNOTATIONES HISTORICAE ET PHILOLOGICAE (Elberfeldi in bibliop. Henr. Bueschleri, 1829.)

CHAPTER I. On the life and writings of Eusebius of Emesa.

to have written a unique book about the life and merits of Eusebius. Added to this is the remarkable praise (as is commonly believed) with which Jerome (*De scriptor. eccl.* c. 91, coll. c. 129) extols him above others as a writer of elegant and rhetorical genius, and as the author of many books, with great applause from many readers, and also as a distinguished doctor, of whom that great man Chrysostom was a follower.

Yet, not only do the origins and life of this man labor under great obscurity, but his writings for so many centuries were greatly neglected, or rather, entirely unknown. There exist, indeed, Latin homilies under his name, which were once considered by some to be a genuine work, but now are rejected by learned men of both Churches as a pseudonymous work.

Nothing, therefore, remains but to say that all the genuine writings of Eusebius of Emesa, of which, as the ancients attest, there was a great number, have perished. One may think of a twofold cause for this demise: the one is the injury of time, which has destroyed so many excellent works of the human mind; the other is the fault of men, by which it came about that, whether through envy, or fear, or under the study and pretext of piety, many writings—and those not rarely most excellent ones—were neglected and thus suppressed. It is evident that this happened quite often among Christians in the case of heretics, especially from that time when Constantine the Great gave the first example of burning the books of heretics; a thing which thereafter had many imitators. However that may be, in the case of our author (concerning whom we shall discourse more accurately hereafter), his writings, once adorned with such great praises, had a sad fate, such that, if you except a few, and those meager, relics, they were consigned to deep oblivion.

It seemed to me, therefore, not a useless task to have undertaken, when in the year 1820, an academic opportunity being offered to me, I published the oration of Eusebius for the holy day of Preparation [Good Friday] from two Viennese codices. A transcript had been kindly obtained for me by the most illustrious and noble Thomas de Chabert, a man remarkably deserving in Oriental literature and for many years my very close friend. He, therefore, entrusted this business to a man who seemed suitable for this, and he affirmed that the transcript was not only completed with the highest fidelity, but also reviewed and authenticated by that most learned and most Greek-minded man, the Honorable de Kopitar. Putting my trust in these, as was proper, I took that transcript to be indeed faulty, but nevertheless such that its faultiness had been drawn from the nature of the poorly written codex, and not from the fault of the scribe. For who, without inspection and comparison of the codex, could have known that so many entire passages were omitted and mutilated in more than one way? The same view was held by that most learned man Naekius, a colleague and very close friend, who, for his favor toward me, had undertaken the revision and examination of the transcript before it was printed. We corrected together what seemed faulty, and we strove to aid the most difficult passages with conjectures here and there, but as for the rest, we rendered them as they had been delivered to us. Thus, our first edition of the praised Eusebian oration appeared eight years ago, mangled indeed, as we now know, and imperfect, yet one which answered to our, albeit whatever, resources.

Two fragments of Eusebius were preserved by Theodoret in *Dialog.* III, t. IV, p. 258 sqq. Furthermore, the learned men said that some other excerpts of his lie hidden in the Catenae of the Greek Fathers (cf. Du-Pin, *nov. Bibl. Patr.* t. II, p. 126); although by no one, as far as I know, has it been indicated which they are, and where they are. All the rest of his writings were believed to be lost, and when you consider their use, they were truly lost. Yet the first to show at the end of the 17th century that three Greek homilies of our Eusebius still survived and were held in the most celebrated Viennese Library was Petrus Lambecius, in *Commentar. de Bibliotheca Cæsar. Vindobon.* lib. IV, p. 184; and lib. V, p. 135, coll. p. 323–324, Vienna edit. 1671. This is also what we read repeated and confirmed in Dan. Nesselius, *Catalog. Vindobon.* 1690, p. 309 and p. 420. From that time our Eusebius began once again to be counted among the surviving authors, but nevertheless he could not yet be said to have been recalled to life, seeing that he was ^B hidden away, bristling with scribal errors, in two manuscripts that could be inspected by very few, or by none at all. ^C

This edition of whatever quality also received the applause of learned men, and there were not a few who publicly and privately wished for a continuation of this work, and honorably urged me to publish without delay the second oration of Eusebius concerning the coming of John [the Baptist] into Hades, which I had promised. Now, however, when I was on the point of satisfying these desires, through the singular benevolence of two excellent men, who now are in charge of the literary resources in which the renowned Viennese Library excels, the Honorable and famous de Kopitar, and the Honorable Jos. de Eichenfeld, it has come about that which I could scarcely, or not even scarcely, hope for in this matter: for they not only kindly transmitted to me the oration concerning John, which I had desired, described with the highest fidelity from the codex and illustrated with some critical observations, but they also re-examined with the utmost accuracy and restored to its integrity the oration for the holy day of Preparation, according to the faith of the codex. The Honorable de Kopitar, therefore, with these second efforts, has now truly achieved in this revised and more corrected edition what…

in the former was not truly attributed to him. Through the care of the most learned Eichenfeld, it was brought about that a specimen of the copy of the manuscript codex (which the English are accustomed to call a facsimile) was transmitted to me, so that one might better judge the nature and character of the manuscript codex. Nor did the skill of these most excellent men stop there; rather, they also most diligently examined the entire store of Greek theological manuscripts with the intention of determining, more certainly than before, whether other works of our Eusebius still lie concealed in the Vienna Library. Regarding this matter, since there is much to be discussed below, it suffices at this point to bring forward the opinion of each learned man, by which they believe that, apart from the orations communicated to us, no other small work of Eusebius of Emesa survives. ^B

Since these things are so, and since there is almost no hope of finding more fragments of Eusebius (for that most fortunate finder of our age, Angelo Mai, has to this day been able to discover nothing either in Milan or in Rome), we have not wished to delay any longer our plan of collecting and editing all the remains of Eusebius. There is not much that we have been able to collect; but the fault is certainly not ours. Let those, therefore, who desire more blame not us, but fate, which has denied us more. Certainly, this our edition exhibits a sacred and dramatic trilogy, which until now has been a *hapax legomenon*, and which even for that reason seems to be of no small value, because we may discover in it the origins of the divine comedy, in which the ancient Christians were so greatly delighted.

It seems that some things regarding the life and writings of this singular man should be prefaced to this first edition of Eusebius of Emesa.

The book which, as has already been said, Georgius of Laodicea had written about Eusebius, has not reached our times. Some excerpts from it have been provided by Socrates, *Hist. eccl.* lib. 1, c. 48; and lib. 2, c. 6, 7; and Sozomen, *Hist. eccl.* lib. 2, c. 5 (al. c. 6). Besides these, Theodoret speaks of him in *Dial.* 3, *coll. Hæret. fabul.* lib. 1, and Jerome in the book *De viris illustribus*, cap. 91, coll. (in Fabricius’ *Biblioth. eccles.* Hamb. 1719, f. p. 1780-81), and here and there in other writings, as well as his epitomizer Honorius of Autun, *De scriptor. eccl.* lib. 1, c. 92. G. Trithemius, *De scriptor. eccl.* c. 66 (edit. Fabric., p. 20). Among the writers of the Syrians, whose fellow citizen Eusebius was, only Ebed-Jesu (Cat. libr. eccl. c. 36, in Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.*, t. III, part 1, p. 44) mentions him, although Philoxenus of Mabbug (apud Asseman. *Bibl. Orient.* t. II, p. 28) also praises some of our tracts.

From these sources, writers of literary and ecclesiastical history, and even of patristic theology, have drawn. Among whom, above others, we commend the following: Alb. Fabricius, *Bibl. Gr.*, t. VI, p. 106 sqq. (Edit. Harless.), t. VII, p. 412 sqq. Guil. Cave, *Hist. lit. script. eccl.*, t. I, p. 207 sqq. Rob. Bellarmine, *De scriptor. eccl. liber*, Lutet. 1617, 8, p. 196-97. Phil. Labbe, *Dissert. de script. eccl.*, t. I, Paris 1660, 8, p. 310-11, add. p. 779. Jo. Gerhard, *Patrol.*, Jena 1668, 8, p. 427-29. El. Dupin, *Nova Bibl. auctor. eccl.*, t. II, Colon. Agr. 1692, 4, p. 125-127. Casim. Oudin, *Commentar. de script. eccl. antiq.*, t. I, Lips. 1722, f. p. 390-425. Schroeckh, *Chr. Kirchengesch.*, t. VI, p. 68-72, p. 115. Engelhardt, *Liter. Leitfaden zu Vorles. über die Patristik*, Erlang. 1823, 8, p. 31. Fuhrmann, *Handwörterbuch der chr. Rel. u. Kirchengeschichte*, t. I, Hal. 1826, 8, p. 736. Gieseler, *Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte*, Part I, 2nd edit., Bonn 1827, p. 365.

It will now be our task purposefully and, as they say, *ex professo*, to examine this whole subject and to inquire a little more accurately into some parts of this history that still labor under obscurity.

Our Eusebius takes his surname, Emesenus, by which he is consistently distinguished from others of this name and his contemporaries—e.g., Eusebius of Caesarea, son of Pamphilus, Eusebius of Nicomedia, and others—from the city of Phoenicia (or rather Coele-Syria on the Orontes), Emesa ^C (3). However, the name of this very celebrated city, which exists even to our own days in the province of the Damascus Eyalet under the name Hems, is accustomed to be pronounced in various ways by Orientals and Occidentals. The Syrians, as well as the Arabs, say *Chemz* or *Chemza*. Cf. Abulfedæ *Annal. Muslem.*, edited by Reiske, t. I, p. 221-225, 463; t. IV, p. 303; t. V, p. 11 sqq. The Greeks, however, following the custom of the Orientals of expressing the *Chet* or *Cha* (*Hha*) with a *chi*, write and pronounce the name of our city as Εμεσα, Εμεστα, or Εμισα. In Pliny, *Hemesa* approaches more closely to the Orientalism. In Ptolemy and Ammianus, *Emessa* and *Emissa* occur. Strabo, Theodoret, Photius, and others always write Εμεσα, and those originating or named from this city, by correct derivation, call them Εμεσηνόν. So also Sophronius, in the version of Jerome’s *De vir. illustr.* c. 91: Ευσέβιος Εμεσηνός, which spelling we too have retained, since *Emessenus*, *Emmessenus*, *Emisenus*, and *Emissæus* (derived from Εμισα) are acceptable, given the license in such matters that must be denied to no one.

Our subject was so called, however, not because he was a native of the city of Emesa, but because he held the episcopal see of Emesa for some time. For, with no one contradicting, on the authority of Georgius of Laodicea, it is narrated...

^A that Eusebius was descended from the nobles of Edessa in Mesopotamia, and from his youth was instructed in the sacred Letters, and then was trained in Greek studies by a teacher who was staying at Edessa at that time. From this testimony, with which Sozomen (h. e. lib. III, c. 5) also agrees, it is clear that Eusebius was not only born to honorable parents at Edessa, but was also a student of the Edessene School, which flourished throughout the Orient during the third, fourth, and fifth centuries with no less praise than the Antiochene and Alexandrian schools. Moreover, he mentions a twofold education: one in the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the other in the humanities. He does not name the teacher of the latter, but praises him as a learned man who was living in Edessa at that time. Who he might have been, I cannot ascertain by any evident conjecture. One might think of Ethilaus or Aetolus, whom the Edessene Chronicle in Assemani’s *Bibliotheca Orientalis* spells Aitallah, and who was present at the Council of Nicaea and subscribed to its formula, or of James of Nisibis (not to be confused with James of Edessa), or of Abraham, bishop of Edessa. Perhaps the man was a heretic or of suspected faith, and therefore his name was suppressed by Georgius, lest our author sound ill-famed as the disciple of a heretic. Disciples of Bardesanes flourished for a long time in the Edessene church, and against them that most illustrious Ephrem the Syrian, a contemporary and fellow-citizen of ours, wrote much. Nor should the association be passed over in silence, which renders our author a participant with Isidore, that most famous philosopher and wonder-worker, of which Photius speaks in his *Bibliotheca*, codex 242, concerning which matter more must be said ^B below. From the fact that Georgius named the other teachers, Patrophilus of Scythopolis and Eusebius of Caesarea, it could not be rashly concluded that he did not name the Edessene teachers because, as they say, it was impossible to do so with an honorable title.

More certain are the things which are narrated by Georgius concerning the exegetical and homiletical instruction (which in the ancient Church were always joined, as is evident from Origen and Augustine’s book *De doctrina Christiana*) through Eusebius of Caesarea and Patrophilus of Scythopolis. Socrates has: “Finally, the sacred Books were interpreted by Patrophilus and Eusebius; the former of whom presided over the church in Caesarea, and the latter over that in Scythopolis.” Sozomen expresses this in the same words: “Later, he perfected the divine Books under the exegete Eusebius, son of Pamphilus, and Patrophilus, who presided over Scythopolis.” We have, therefore, a more accurate time ^C at which our author completed his theological studies to their conclusion. For the Duumviri, whose institution was used, flourished at the beginning of the fourth century, and it is certain concerning Eusebius of Caesarea that he presided over the Caesarean see (for he refused the Antiochene) from the year 314 until the year 340. The testimony of Sozomen (h. e. lib. III, c. 13) is added, where he praises Eusebius of Emesa, Titus of Bostra, Serapion of Thmuis, Basil of Ancyra, Eudoxius, Acacius, and Cyril of Jerusalem as contemporaries. From the same author (lib. II, c. 5) it is certain that he was in favor with the Emperor Constantius; and the testimony of Jerome ( *De viris illustribus*, c. 91) comes closer: “He flourished in the times of the Emperor Constantius, under whom he also died and was buried at Antioch.”

Regarding the age, therefore, in which he lived, there is no doubt; but concerning the year in which he was born and died, it is not sufficiently certain. Of his year of birth, no trace exists; and nothing remains except conjecture that our author saw the light either in the last lustrum of the third century or the first years of the fourth. As regards the year of his death, by the testimony of Jerome, he died before the Emperor Constantius, that is, before the year 361. This is most certain, as Phil. Labbeus ( *De script. eccl.*, t. I, p. 310) also observed: “He lived in the time of the Emperor Constantius, under whom he died and was buried at Antioch, and therefore he ceased to live at least before the year 361.” Tillemont ( *Memor. hist. eccl.*, t. VI), Oudinus, Fabricius, Schroeckh, and others assign the year of death as 360, from mere conjecture, as it seems. More to the point, Du Pin ( *Nov. Bibl. auct. eccl.*, t. II) judges: “He had already died by the year 359, since his successor, Paul of Emesa, was present at the Council of Seleucia, as can be seen from Epiphanius.” Epiphanius treats of this assembly (for such the ancients called this synod of Semi-Arians and Anomoeans) held at Seleucia by the order of Constantius in 359 ( *Haeres.* 73, § 23-26). In the subscription, p. 874, it is read in the seventh place: “Paul, bishop of Emesa.” Two Eusebiuses also occur there, namely Eusebius, bishop of Seleucia in Syria, and Eusebius, bishop of Sebaste in Palestine; but these are different from our author.

Since, however, on account of the lack of history, ^D the entire curriculum of our author’s life cannot be completed, it seems more prudent, having collected from ancient writers notices from everywhere, to arrange his memorabilia under headings...

^A I. Socrates and Sozomen recount that Eusebius, after he had spent some time in Antioch and had become familiar with Euphronius, the successor of Eustathius, wishing to avoid the office of the priesthood, betook himself to Alexandria and there applied himself to the study of philosophy. Both writers use almost the same words. Socrates indeed: *Fleeing the priesthood, he reached Alexandria, and there learned the subject of philosophy.* Sozomen, however: *Fleeing the priesthood, he arrived at Alexandria, and attending the philosophers there, and having been trained in their teachings, he returned to Antioch,* etc. (6).

^B This behavior is certainly alien to the customs of our age, but by no means to those of the ancient Church. For the sacerdotal and episcopal office was so far from being sought after with vows and desires as a benefice (in the sense that it is taken in the modern era) that it was rather feared as a most grave and dangerous duty and burden. The flight from the priesthood and from the episcopate was so frequent that candidates who were considered suitable for this office had to be sought out from all sides, and not rarely, being unwilling, were forced as if by the neck to undertake the charge. Some, after long and earnest entreaties, obtained the grace and favor of declining the office; others sought safety in flight or concealment; others finally, which seems hardly credible, attempted to withdraw themselves from such a duty by feigning madness. There are almost numberless examples of this dread and refusal. ^C We commend among many examples Gaudentius, Paulinus, Ambrose, Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory Nazianzen and Ephrem the Syrian, all of whom lived at the same time. Whoever desires more will find them described in the work of Ludovici Thomassini, *De vet. et nov. disciplina*, p. 1, lib. 1, c. 2, c. 63 seqq.

It is surprising, however, that in the time of the persecutions of the first century, and much more rarely, examples of this aversion are to be found. Persecutors raged above all against bishops and the ministers of sacred things, which it is established happened especially under Decius and Diocletian; yet there were not wanting those who voluntarily sought this martyrdom in the midst of hunger and thirst, in cold and nakedness, in scourges and blows, in prisons and daily deaths. At that time, therefore, to desire the episcopate was nothing else than to desire to die a thousand times a day for Christ, which indeed no religion forbids.

Yet this condition was completely different from the fourth century onward. However, since this is not the place to treat this entire subject, we think it sufficient to warn that at this time, too, there was no lack of cause and occasion for martyrdom, albeit for a different reason. The external state of the Christian Church had indeed been so transformed for the better by Constantine the Great that there was no fear of persecutions such as had invaded the republic of Christ under the reign of the pagans. But the internal state was so perturbed by various controversies, schisms, and heresies that the duty of ecclesiastical prelates became in more than one way hindered and most difficult. No one will wonder at this who has learned from ecclesiastical history what turmoils were at that time stirred up by the Novatians, Donatists, and Arians. On both sides we see bishops deposed, sent into exile, restored again, and shortly after rejected. The example of Athanasius can serve as an example for all and teach most excellently what were the conditions and fates of ecclesiastical prelates at that most troubled time.

^D II. Our author, therefore, while he withdrew to avoid the priesthood and sought philosophical leisure at Alexandria, did nothing else than what had been done by many learned men of this age averse to partisan factions. Yet the same thing happened to him as to many of his contemporaries: he did not attain his wish. For, yielding to the invitations of Placitus, the successor of Euphronius, and others, he returned to Antioch, and there, by a council assembled at that time in that city, he was elected and designated bishop of Alexandria, in the place of Athanasius, whom the council had deposed according to the tenor of canon 4 (in Harduini *Act. concil.* t. 1, p. 590). This was done primarily by the counsel of Eusebius of Nicomedia, after the death of Arius, the head of the Arians, as Socrates and Sozomen testify. This Antiochene council was summoned in the year 341, on the occasion of the dedication of the magnificent temple which Constantine the Great had ordered to be built, under the auspices of the Emperor Constantius, who himself was present, and he gave the role of president to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Eman. Scheltraten has diligently explained the history of this Antiochene council (not to be confused with the one that was assembled in the same place in the year 361) in a separate book: *Sacrum Antiochenum concilium.* Antwerp, 1681, Kirchengesch. t. VI, p. 59-68. The common design and study of the prelates of this synod was to have been an *Irenicum*, so that peace might be established between the Catholics and the Arians.

^A That this may be restored, which has been interrupted for so long, can be gathered from the fact that our Eusebius was considered sufficient to take the place of Athanasius. For he was considered worthy to succeed Athanasius not only because of his erudition, talent, and exceptional eloquence in which he excelled, but also because, standing as a certain middleman among the keener champions of either side, he seemed more suitable than the others to resolve and settle this dispute.

^B But our man refused the dignity placed upon him under such an honorable title. We shall recount it in the words of Sozomen (270): "Eusebius of Nicomedia, the president of the synod, finding that he was not much involved in political affairs, and was a very capable speaker, [thought] to easily win over the Egyptians from their loyalty regarding Athanasius. But since he refused this ordination, reasoning that he would find prepared hatred among the Alexandrians, who would not tolerate seeing another in place of Athanasius, Gregory is appointed to the see of the Alexandrians, and he himself to the Church of Emesa." Our man is certainly to be excused in this. For even if he did not possess that constancy and confidence in himself which is wont to be found in men of more prominent virtue and in heroes, by which they eagerly undertake arduous and most difficult tasks, yet his modesty and prudence is to be praised, in that he did not wish to be thrust upon the Alexandrians, who were so intensely infatuated with their own Athanasius, and to perform a duty which he could not at that time fulfill. The Antiochene Fathers also agreed to his requests and assigned to him another province, the bishopric of Emesa, which province he also took upon himself with a ready mind.

^C III. But the men of Emesa did not wish to accept their new bishop. Of such refusal at that time, especially in the Novatian and Donatist controversy, and not least in the Arian one itself, many examples exist, and from this the flight from the priesthood and episcopate of which we have spoken can be explained. Yet in our case a unique reason is present. Socrates (p. 545) explains it more briefly: ". . . having been sent to the city of Emesa; and the Emesenians having dissented regarding his ordination, for he was reviled as being practiced in mathematics, he makes use of flight, and goes off to Laodicea, to George, who had said many things about him." Sozomen agrees (p. 270), save that he observes more to the point: "There (i.e., among the Emesenians) having endured a riot, for he was accused of practicing that part of astronomy which they call ^D effective, he fled and came to Laodicea to George, the bishop there, who was a suitable person." These things must be considered a little more carefully.

It is well known that not only among profane authors but even among ecclesiastical Fathers, the usage of language is such that *mathematike* (i.e., science or knowledge) is taken in a more special sense for Astronomy, and not rarely for Astrology. That this usage of language also obtained among Latin authors, Cicero is a witness in *Tusc. quaest.* bk. 1, c. 17; *De divinat.* bk. 2, c. 2; *De* orator bk. 1, c. 3. From the ecclesiastical Fathers, the testimony of Tertullian would suffice, *De idololatr.* c. 9, since it bears more closely on the matter. He says, however, p. 108 (Rigalt. edit.): "Mathematicians are expelled, along with their angels. The City and Italy are forbidden to mathematicians, just as heaven is to their angels. The same penalty of exile applies to students and teachers alike. But magi and astrologers came from the East. We know the association between magic and astrology. Therefore, the first interpreters of the stars announced Christ as born; the first counted [his stars]. Under this name, I think, they put Christ under obligation to themselves. What then? Will the religion of those magi now patronize mathematicians? Today, indeed, *mathesis* is of Christ; it observes and proclaims the star of Christ, not that of Saturn and Mars and anyone else of the same order of the dead. But indeed, that science was allowed up until the Gospel, so that once Christ was manifested, no one thenceforth should interpret the birth of anyone from the heavens." To these words respond the things which the same Tertullian writes in *Adv. Marc.* bk. 1, c. 18: "Let him proceed, come now, into notice when he wished, when he could, when the fatal hour arrived; for perhaps an Anabibazon (rising, emerging) was standing in his way, or some maleficent stars, or Saturn in square, or Mars in trine. For mathematicians are also mostly Marcionite; and not even blushing at this, they live by the very stars of the Creator."

From these [texts] it is clear that Sozomen has not badly expressed it: "that part of astronomy which they call effective (i.e., divinatory astrology)," which was simply called *mathematike* by Socrates, and which was condemned as heretical and impious. Both, however, do not accuse Eusebius, but merely narrate that this rumor about him had been spread to stir up envy: a fact which the words *eloidoreito* and *dieballeto*, which are always taken in a bad sense, indicate. What then? If, nevertheless, this suspicion of whatever kind, which was stirred up against Eusebius among the Emesenians, had not been entirely without cause? Both writers follow George of Laodicea; he, however, a friend of Eusebius, patronizes his cause on every occasion, and turns everything to the better part, as they say. We confess that no doubt would have arisen in us regarding this matter, if not after having read the narrative which is contained in Photius' *Bibliotheca*, cod. 242, p. 1062-63, edit. Andr. Schott. Rotomag. 1635, f. Edit. Imman. Bekker. Berol. 1824, 4, p. 348. Although this narrative has been alleged by no one, so far as I know, in this history, yet because it contributes much to illustrating it, we shall take care to transcribe this whole passage. We premise, however, that that whole narrative in Photius is taken from the book of Damascius (a Stoic philosopher flourishing in the 6th century) *On the Life of Isidore the Philosopher*. The passage, however, pertinent to this is expressed in these words: "But the writer was sprung from this city; as the occupation of debating is terrible, turning indeed around my mouth and tongue the material for my study,"

^A and turning the soul away from the blessed and God-beloved messages belonging to it. "Reflecting on these things," says the writer, "I was sometimes interrupted from my rhetorical explanations. Nine years passed for me in this way. We lived together, both days and nights, for eight months. I saw," he says, "the Baetylus moving through the air, sometimes hidden in the garments, and sometimes even carried in the hands of the practitioner." The name of the practitioner who treated the Baetylus was Eusebius, who also said that there came upon him once an unexpected and sudden eagerness to wander away from the city of Emesa in the middle of the night, almost as far as the mountain to which a temple of Athena is built in the ancient style; and that he arrived with all speed at the foothills of the mountain, and sat down there to rest, as if from a journey. Suddenly he saw a sphere of fire leaping down from above, and a great lion standing by the sphere. The latter immediately became invisible, but he himself ran toward the sphere, as the fire was already extinguishing, and caught it to find that it was the Baetylus; he took it up and inquired of which of the gods it might be. He said that it belonged to the Noble One (the Heliopolitans honor the Noble One, having set up in the likeness of Zeus a certain form of a lion), and he brought it home that same night, not less than two hundred and ten stadia away, as he said, continuously. Eusebius was not the master of the Baetylus's movement, as others are of other things, but the one would entreat and pray, while the other was obedient to the oracles. Having uttered these trifles and many like them, the man truly worthy of the Baetylia describes the stone and its form. For he says it was a perfect sphere, whitish in color, and a span in diameter in size. But sometimes it would become larger and smaller, and at other times purple. And he showed us letters written upon the stone, colored with the paint called cinnabar, and hammered into the wall; by means of these he rendered the oracle requested by the inquirer, and it emitted the sound of a thin whistling, which Eusebius interpreted. Having therefore told such tall tales, this empty-headed man, and a myriad of other more illogical things about the Baetylus, he adds: "I used to think that the matter of the Baetylus was something more divine, but Isidore rather said it was demonic; for he said there was a certain demon moving it, not one of the harmful ones, nor one of the excessively material ones, yet not one of those led to the immaterial form, nor one of the pure ones at all; but that different Baetyli are dedicated to different ones, as he says in his blasphemy—to God, to Cronus, to Zeus, to Helios, and to the others."

^B Regarding those *Baetyla* or *Baetylia* (the *Baetylus*, *Baetylon*, "house of God"): we find a most ancient superstition, and one especially proper to Phoenicia. The name *Baetylus*—or *Baetylion*, unknown even to ancient Greek writers—is derived from the Hebrew and Phoenician language: *Beth-el* (i. e., house of God), and it was applied to sacred and anointed stones which were believed to have fallen from heaven, possessed of life, and fit for divination. In the book of Genesis ch. xxviii, the first trace of a stone anointed with oil appears, set up as a monument by the patriarch Jacob during his journey through Mesopotamia (Gen. xxviii, 18: "he set it up as a pillar"), and together with the place, called *Beth-el*. This custom of anointing stones and worshipping such stones is also found among the Greeks, as is evident from Theophrastus in his *Characters* xvii, "On Superstition." Clement of Alexandria affirms the same in *Stromata*, book vii: "They worship every piece of wood and every stone, as the saying goes, having anointed it." Cf. Arnobius, *Against the Gentiles*, book i, ch. 59: "If I had ever seen an anointed [i.e., oiled] stone, and one smeared with olive unguent... as if a present power were in it, I would bow down to it, speak to it, and ask for benefits from a stump that felt nothing."

^C Yet different from these stones are those *Baetylia* about which Photius speaks here from Damascius. They are mystical and magical stones, fallen from heaven, or endowed with miraculous power through the art of some god or demon. The most ancient testimony concerning them exists in the Fragments of Sanchuniathon, preserved by Eusebius of Caesarea in *Praeparatio evangelica*, book i, ch. 10. There we read: "...God devised Baetylia, having fashioned living stones." ^D Bochart, in his *Sacred Geography*, book ii, ch. 2, page 707 (Leusden ed., Leyden 1692), conjectures: "He had written, I believe, Sanchuniathon *lapides unctos* [anointed stones], from the root *shaman* in the sense of 'to anoint,' customary among the Syrians. But by transposing the *d* and the *n*, *mshua* was written incorrectly instead of *mshud*; whence it happened that anointed stones were changed into 'living' [animated] ones." This is rightly stated in the Greek version of Sanchuniathon prepared by Philo of Byblos: "living stones," for to such stones is attributed not only spontaneous motion but also a divinatory virtue, that of indicating future things and accomplishing miraculous acts. Phoenicia and Syria also remained their true homeland; this is what Photius narrates earlier (page 342, Beck ed.): "That in the Heliopolis of Syria, Asclepiades ascended the mountain of Libanus, and saw many of those so-called *Baetylia* or *Baetyla*, about which a myriad of tall tales worthy of an impious tongue are told." Nor is it less relevant that the same Photius just before this (p. 255) speaks of Alexander Severus, the Roman Emperor.

Since it is not the purpose of this place and design to illustrate this history with a commentary, which it seems altogether to need, it may nevertheless be permitted to note one or two things.

NOTE. — (7) In the edition of Schott (p. 106), it is wrongly read *theraponti* [attendant/servant] and the whole clause is rendered: "the name of the physician, who carried the *Baetylum*, was Eusebius." The discourse is not about a physician, but about a minister and servant, who is contrasted with the *kyrios* [lord or master].

He says: "He was saying that he saw a stone in which the moon appeared, transformed into all kinds of shapes, now increasing and now decreasing toward the sun, and the sun itself was present in the stone." Isidore certainly has what the inquirer seeks, but he did not wish to speak of it. He repeats the same thing below on page 349, where he adds: "Rumor calls such stones 'traveling companions' (*synoditas*)." Whoever wishes to read more about *Baetylia* should consult, besides Bochart (*loc. cit.*) and other older authors, the following booklets written in our own days: *Ueber den Meteor-Cultus der Alten*, by v. Dalberg (Heidelberg, 1811); F. Münter, *Ueber die vom Himmel gefallenen Steine der Alten* (cf. *Antiquar. Abhandl.*, p. 257 ff.); Rosenmüller, *Altes und neues Morgenland*, Part I, p. 125 ff.; *Deutsche Encyclopädie der Wissenschaften und Künste oder allg. Real-Wörterbuch*, Vol. II, p. 698-99.

However, whatever may be the case with this *Baetylum*, its nature, power, and usage, this much is certain from our history: that a certain Eusebius, from the city of Emesa, was a minister and interpreter of the miraculous *Baetylum*, and by its aid accomplished many things that exceeded natural powers. Our author expresses this with the words "telling wonders or things even more absurd." According to the opinion of Damascius indeed (who was a pagan philosopher in the time of Justinian), divine oracles were issued through *Baetylia*; but Isidore, a Christian philosopher, preferred to attribute the power of the *Baetylum* to a certain demon: and in this judgment, he also sets forth an opinion common to almost all the doctors of the Christian Church in that age.

Since, therefore, we take this Eusebius of Emesa as our subject, we do not fear the objection taken from Chronology, for it has already been demonstrated by Jac. Brucker and others that Damascius, a writer of the 6th century, is in no way accurate in matters pertaining to chronology. He collects similar narratives from various centuries and associates persons not living at the same time, but who taught or did the same or similar things. In his *Life of Isidore*, he speaks of Severus, Ammonius, Proclus, Marinus, Ptolemy, Pythagoras, Asclepius, and many other illustrious men, whom we certainly will not in any way consider to have been contemporaries.

What then? Are we to think that a Christian bishop, who according to the opinion of some carried the name of "Saint," was a participant and accomplice in such gross superstition? How could it have been possible that Eusebius, whom Socrates and Sozomenus nevertheless clear of this crime, should have been promoted by a Christian council to the episcopal dignity, if he had truly been steeped in astrological and magical arts? Anyone who has learned from ecclesiastical history how far and wide superstition reigned among the Christians of the 4th and 5th centuries will cease to marvel. Most celebrated among the ecclesiastical doctors—Origen, Clement of Alexandria, Gregory Neo-Caesariensis, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, and Nazianzen, and many others—were supporters and patrons of the "occult power," "mystical science," sorcery, divination, astrology, soothsaying, etc. In the Eastern Church, superstition had struck deep roots through ^A Platonism and Neo-Platonism, and having been tinged with a Christian color, it found a very rich entry, not only among the Ophites, Valentinians, Marcosians, and other families of Gnostics, but even among the orthodox Fathers. You will find many examples collected by Meinert, Drück, Gibbon, Hauber, Horst, and many others. Further testimonies regarding mathematical and astrological superstition can be gathered from the books of Firmicus Maternus, which he wrote *On the Astronomy of Mathematics* (books VIII, Basil. 1551) and *On the Error of Profane Religions* (edited by Gronovius, Lugd. B., 1709).

But if anyone, because these are examples and judgments of private individuals, should wish to place less faith in them, an ecclesiastical law will surely carry greater authority. Such a law exists in the Council of Laodicea, canons 35 and 36. In canon 35, anathema is imposed on those who, by invoking angels (*ἀγγέλους ὀνομάζειν*), commit themselves to clandestine idolatry (*κεκρυμμένῃ εἰδωλολατρίᾳ σχολάζοντες*) and abandon Jesus Christ. Immediately upon this, in canon 36, it is added: "That those who are in sacred orders, or are clerics, must not be magicians or enchanters, or mathematicians, or astrologers, or make the so-called amulets, which are prisons of their souls; and we have ordered that those who wear them be cast out of the Church."

Regarding the year of this council, it is not certain, as the Chronology in this part is very obscure. However, the learned men agree in that this council was held not before the year 342, nor after the year 365, the disciplinary canons of which have obtained great authority in the Christian Church for all time. We do not, therefore, fear the accusation of rashness while we presume that the Council of Laodicea had regard to the case then being acted upon among the Antiochenes and Emesenes, and that the disciplinary canon which we have appended touches our Eusebius above others.

Whether the Emesenes truly were horrified by the "mathematics" of Eusebius, or rather, the part of "astronomy" that is "effective," or whether they used this as a pretext, those who favored him less because of his dogmatic principles when he was elected Bishop by the Council in the Arian cause, is not clear. This much, however, we know: that he was a short time later restored and introduced. For Socrates, with Sozomenus agreeing, narrates: "He (George) having ^D placed him in Antioch, arranged for him to be brought down to Emesa." Now, therefore, admitted by the Emesenes, for a brief time only, as a bishop "at leisure," of whom there were so many in that age, he seems to have remained free from the exercise of the episcopal office.

IV. How long he remained in this station, what he did there, or what fortunes he experienced, is not recorded by continuous narrative. There are, however, two notices from which the reader may, by not incredible conjecture, attain to the nature of his condition.

First, Socrates adds: "And again he suffered reproach, as holding the views of Sabellius; and indeed..."

^A regarding the manner of his situation, he speaks more extensively. As for the final part of the narrative, whether Socrates is speaking of his first introduction (or installation, as the writers of the Middle Ages are wont to say) by Placitus and Narcissus, or of a new cause that arose after his liberation from the accusation of Sabellianism, is left in doubt. Nor does it appear clearly from the words of Sozomen, who reports on the same accusation. However, he affirms that the accusation of Sabellianism itself (μέμψιν) was brought forward out of envy (φθόνῳ). Nor, indeed, must anything else be concluded, unless you wish to suppose that Eusebius suddenly changed sides, and passed from the Arians, among whom he was numbered even by the testimony of Jerome, to the Nicenes and thus to the Athanasians. For these were the ones whom the Arians were accustomed to slander under the name of Sabellians. Therefore, he should be believed to have defected from the Arians afterwards, although this seems to conflict with probability.

Secondly, it is narrated that the emperor Constantius held our subject in high esteem and had him as a companion on his military expeditions against the Barbarians (the Persians). Now, this emperor favored the Arians, and hence it is probably concluded that Eusebius did not pass over to the Athanasians. But another fact is still apparent from that narrative. Sozomen says (p. 270): "He became pleasing to the emperor Constantius, so much so that when he was about to campaign against the Persians, he brought him along; for it is said that the Divine performed many wonders through him." This is described somewhat more accurately by Socrates: "And that the emperor, when departing against ^C the barbarians, took him along; and that wonders happened at his hands (8)." These things can conveniently be illustrated by Photius, whom we cited above. The words, "The wonders at his hands," seem to be referred to that *baetylus* of which is read in Photius: "And indeed, at one time even being carried in the hands of the one serving it; and the name of the one serving the *baetylus* was Eusebius." Cf. what is added regarding the *chresmodia* (oracular power), issued by the virtue of the *baetylus*. Be that as it may, for Emperor Constantius, who is known to have been in his superstition very similar to his father, Constantine the Great (cf. among many witnesses, Ammian. Marcell. Hist. lib. XXI, c. 16), such a wonder-worker was most desirable.

It is not stated in what year this was done, how long he remained in the company of the emperor, and whether or when he returned to Emesa. Since Jerome says that he was buried at Antioch, it is perhaps to be conjectured that he remained with the emperor until the very end of his life. For he, as Socrates testifies in Hist. eccl. lib. II, c. 30-32, stayed for several years at Antioch, both on account of the war against Sapor, king of the Persians, which was waged with unfortunate results, and on account of the Meletian schism (the second, as they call it), by which the Church was miserably disturbed; and in this city, in that very year 361 in which he departed from life, he convened a new council to compose the Meletian affairs; ^D and he wrote against him as a detractor of the *homoousion*.

As for the judgments of the ancients regarding the character, authority, and fame of our Eusebius, it has already been said that ancient writers go in different directions. For there are those who hold him for an Arian, but others who make him an adherent of Sabellianism. But when matters are examined more accurately, he cannot with right and merit be held as a Sabellian. For Socrates and Sozomen do not say that he was a Sabellian, but speak only of the "reproach, as holding the views of Sabellius." Socrates in another place (Hist. eccl. lib. II, c. 18), discussing more fully the accusation of Sabellianism so frequently brought forward at that time, speaks of George of Laodicea, who wrote the life of Eusebius of Emesa, as a refuter of the *homoousion*. But he had said before: "For those who declined the term *homoousion* believed that those who accepted it were introducing the doctrine of Sabellius and Montanus," etc. And Sozomen, who himself is believed to favor the Arians, adds: "He did not escape the envy of those who are wont to be pained by the virtues of others." If, therefore, we place faith in these, he was not a Sabellian, but rather, since like his master Eusebius of Caesarea he rejected the *homoousion*, he was presumed to be a supporter and patron of the Arians.

NOTES. (8) In the Latin version of Christophorsonus, one may read this paraphrase: "That it was held for certain that certain monstrous prodigies were performed by him." Jerome in the Chronicle, to the 10th year of Constantius, writes...

that ^A Eusebius of Emesa was the standard-bearer of the Arian faction, and composed many and varied works. Yet this judgment should perhaps not be pressed so hard, since the same Jerome designated other illustrious men, for example, Eusebius of Caesarea and others, as such, even though they were never Arians. Besides Jerome, Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, also counts our man among the Arians. In Dialogus 3, Opp. t. IV, p. 257, he brings forward a witness: "Eusebius, the Phoenician, who became high priest of the city of Emesa, [situated] on the Lebanon." He calls him: "A witness from another heretical flock," and he understands Arianism under such a group of heretics. This is apparent from the words following, where there is mention of the writings of Eusebius: "I encountered some" (therefore he had not read all of Eusebius's books) "of his writings, and I found them to be of doctrines agreeable to those of Arius." Which is still confirmed by the testimony added immediately: "Of that faction" (a coterie, or party, as the previous 'heretical flock') "belonging to this one." Therefore, according to the opinion of Theodoret, there is no doubt that Eusebius was an Arian. This, however, must be kept well in mind: that Theodoret nonetheless attributed great authority to the testimony of this man, as well as to Apollinarius, when he expresses correct doctrine and agrees with the Orthodox ("I consider him to have used [his] words towards us," as it is said on p. 257). Furthermore, intending to excuse this liberty, he affirms at the end (p. 263) that pious teachers ought to imitate the example of the bee, which from all herbs and flowers collects not poison, but honey. "But if anywhere you might find a blade of grass not edible, nor sweet—such as this [one of] Apollinarius and Eusebius—yet having something useful for honey-making, it is nothing absurd to take what is useful and leave behind what is harmful." From these it is clear at the same time that Theodoret, even though he acted as a severe censor of heretical depravity, by no means approved the counsels of those who would urge that the books of heretics be burned and destroyed.

From this, however, learned men examining ecclesiastical history most carefully and without dogmatic prejudice and party spirit have demonstrated that not all Arians are the same, such that it has even happened ^B to our Eusebius to be removed from the number of Arians and ascribed to the Semi-Arians. See Franc. Walchius, *Historie der Ketzereyen*, etc., Th. II, p. 666-67; and Schroeckh, *Kirchen-Gesch.*, Th. VI, p. 70, coll. p. 109 and 113. Now, the very distinction between Arians and Semi-Arians (Ἡμιαρειανῶν) already occurs among the ancients, and as far as we know, Epiphanius (Adv. haeres. 73, § 1, Opp. t. I, p. 844-845) was the first who distinguished between the "Ariomaniacs" (i. e., the insane, pure, and unalloyed Arians) and the "Semi-Arians." He says: "Having cut off those of the madness which sprouted from Arius himself, let us examine how some 'Semi-Arianize,' denying the name of that man, but having put on him and the same evil doctrine," etc. A little later he calls Basil of Ancyra and George of Laodicea leaders of the Semi-Arians: "As the leaders of this Semi-Arian heresy say," and he adds that almost all the teachers of Coele-Syria (Κοίλης Συρίας) did the same with them. He does not indeed count our Eusebius among them, but it is easily understood that he is included in the number of friends and associates. Epiphanius differs from later writers only in that he holds the Semi-Arians to be no less a plague upon the Church than the pure Arians, whereas the others offer a much milder judgment concerning them.

However the judgment of this man pronounced by the ancients and the moderns may be, it is certainly astonishing that he should have been numbered among the saints. Caesar Baronius (9) is accustomed to be cited as a witness in *Annal.* ad a. 441, n. 11, and Petr. de Natalibus, *Vit. sanctor.*, lib. VII, c. 63. This testimony, however, seems to me very doubtful, such that I would have suspected that a substitution of persons lay beneath it. Perhaps you would not be far from the truth if you think of Eusebius of Vercelli, who at nearly the same time, in the year 355, was sent into exile on account of his friendship with Athanasius, but afterwards was reinstated in ^C the episcopate of Vercelli and, as an intrepid defender of the Nicene faith and interpreter of the Holy Scriptures, achieved great fame. However that may be, in no Martyrology and Calendar that has authority and use in the Church, so far as I know, is the name of Eusebius of Emesa read. In the Martyrology of the Greek Church, etc., Edit. U. G. Siberi, Lips. 1727, 4, ten Eusebiuses are named; but no one of them can be Ours. Nor can I persuade myself that he lies under the name which is placed at Jan. 23rd with this distich: In the holy father Eusebius: "Hither to us to the delights of the pole Eusebius, the delightful minds (i. e., the intelligences [of the] holy angels) say." The rest all bear either a surname or the title of martyr. The Roman Martyrology, edit. Antverp. 1771, 8, exhibits sixteen Eusebiuses, among whom, however, the Emesene is missed. ^D Not that Eusebius of Emesa should be called a saint; but it is so far from the case that he favors this opinion that he would rather have declared it completely exploded. For his words are: "But these things are enough for the title of glory of an Arian man's burial—who, nevertheless, somewhere, through the supreme ignorance of the author who published certain Homilies in his name, we find to be named 'blessed,' and to be erroneously listed by others (Petr. Natal. in Catal. sanctor. lib. vi, c. 63; Martyrol. d. 14 Aug.) among the saints. These all have been deceived by the authority of Sozomen, whom it would have been wise to have refuted, so that his assertion might no longer exist as a snare for the unskilled. The author [of the error] is also Socrates, the same who, as seen above, wrote a book concerning the life of this same Eusebius while bishop of Laodicea, an Arian, in which he patched together so many and such great lies concerning a colleague in impiety. But of these things I have spoken elsewhere in the Notes to the Roman Martyrology." Having read which, no one will surely have Baronius as a witness for a holy Eusebius.

^A

Now, as regards the one who wrote excellently (θαυμαστῶς) against Manes, and names among them: Archelaus, Origen (though it has been taught that this is false by Petavius in *Observat. ad Epiphan.* t. II, p. 268-69), Eusebius of Caesarea, Eusebius of Emesa, Serapion, Athanasius, George of Laodicea, Apollinaris of Laodicea, and Titus (of Bostra). But apart from this consistent testimony concerning a book of Eusebius of Emesa against the Manichaeans, nothing is read, nor does Jerome mention it, nor Ebed-Jesu; from which it seems possible to conclude that he was not reckoned among the most eminent.

Jerome, however, in his book *De Viris Illustribus* c. 91 (in Fabricius’ *Biblioth. ecclesiast.* p. 180-81) has this: "Eusebius of Emesa, bishop [this title is omitted here in Sophronius’ Greek version], of elegant and rhetorical genius, composed innumerable books, and those which pertain to the applause of the people, and, having followed history rather, is most studiously read by those who wish to declaim, among which the most notable are those against the Jews and the Gentiles, and the Novatians, and ten books on the Galatians, and short but very numerous homilies on the Gospels. He flourished in the times of the Emperor Constantius, under whom he died and was buried at Antioch." ^B

Passing over now the judgment of Jerome concerning the character and rhetorical virtue of Eusebius, of which more is to be said shortly, we have these things to advise regarding this passage:

I. The words: *composed innumerable books*, in a writer such as Jerome is, not at all alien to hyperbole (ὑπερβολῇ), do not seem to need being pressed so much. For if the Emesene had exceeded even Origen himself (τὸν Ἀδαμάντινον), Chrysostom, Augustine, or our very own Jerome and other men who were "prolific" (πολυγράφους) in the number of their books, the books would still not have been "innumerable." Even if we assume that individual homilies, exhortations, exegetical treatises, etc., are reckoned as books and works according to the custom of the ancients (as is done in Origen), even these smaller works could certainly be recalled under a number. Suidas uses a similar hyperbole concerning Chrysostom, saying: "To recount the number of his writings is not for a man, but rather for God, who knows all things!" It may suffice, therefore, that Jerome intended to say that our Eusebius was the author of many books, as he himself wrote in another place (*Chronic.* ad a. X Constantii): "Eusebius of Emesa... writes many and various things." ^C

II. Jerome does not list all that were extant, but only those which, in his judgment, were principal, or which, even if he himself did not approve of them, had attained the greatest fame. ^D

III. It remains in doubt whether the writing *Against the Jews and Gentiles* is one work against each enemy of the Christian religion, such that he acted as an apologist simultaneously against both the Jews and the Gentiles. Examples of such a combination, however, are very rare, or non-existent, among the ancients; and so, if following established custom...

you have mentioned any who preceded you in that which you maintain, I beg that if I point out that you are mistaken, you may allow yourself to err with such persons; for as for them, I confess I have read no one. But since there are about six or seven, you yourself also undermine the authority of four of them. For the Laodicene, whose name you suppress, you say recently departed from the Church; Alexander, however, is an old heretic; but Origen and Didymus, I read that they were reprimanded by you in your more recent short works, and not on minor matters, nor on trivial questions, even though you had previously praised Origen marvelously. Therefore, I assume they are in error, because you yourself would not allow it; although this is stated in such a way as if they had not erred in this opinion. For who is there who would wish to err with just anyone? There remain, therefore, three: Eusebius, Theodore of Heraclea, and him whom you remember a little later, John, who long ago governed the Constantinopolitan Church in the pontifical rank.

This testimony of both Fathers has been overlooked by everyone, as far as we can see, and although it contains nothing about it beyond the bare name of Eusebius of Emesa, we have nevertheless thought it ought to be brought forward, because it appears from it that Emesenus wrote a commentary on the Epistle to the Galatians, and at the same time, with what other doctors he was joined. But it is also clear from this that Jerome—who indeed was not consistent with himself even in this case, as Augustine rightly rebukes him—had judged more benevolently of Emesenus the interpreter than, as we shall soon see, of the orator.

VI. Finally, as regards the Homilies on the Gospels, brief but very numerous, Emesenus seems to have earned the greatest praise and fame in this genre. Jerome seems to have had those homilies in mind before others when he wrote: “They pertain to the applause of the people, and are read most studiously by those who wish to declaim.” If, therefore, the Latin homilies, which circulate under the name of Eusebius of Emesa and have been published in many editions starting from the year 1531, were genuine, it would also be certain concerning the many of which the author speaks. Oudin, in his *Comment. de script. eccl.* T. [I], p. 392, writes thus concerning this matter: “Many homilies are published under the name of Eusebius, bishop of Emesa, which certainly do not belong to him. Eusebius of Emesa did not receive such a multitude of homilies at one and the same time; he who, gradually and successively, as this ecclesiastical treasure grew day by day, has been inscribed as the author of nearly two hundred homilies, and for some time was believed to be so. From small beginnings, great things are often made, as happened with this author.” However, no one has shown better how suspect this Latin homiletic work is than the same Oudin, who, in an extensive Dissertation on pp. 392–426, ^A many [mss. express, the same one whom Theodoret in dial. 3 gave as a companion to Emesenus. Jerome valued him greatly as his own teacher; but he does not dare to praise a heretic who holds the same views as he; he therefore suppresses the name that is hateful to many.]

NOTÆ. (12) The Centuriators of Magdeburg, Cent. iv, p. 1474 and p. 1538, establish two distinct books of Emesenus and use this testimony of Jerome. (15) Laodicenus (i.e., declared a heretic) is without doubt Apollinaris or St. Apollinarius, whose name many manuscript codices express.

^A confirmed by arguments, all these Latin homilies were written by many Gallican doctors—Faustus of Riez, Eucherius, Caesarius of Arles, and others—and collected under the name of Eusebius of Emesa due to the ignorance and negligence of later centuries.

But already long ago Robert Bellarmine (*De scriptor. eccl.*, pp. 196–97) had judged the same more briefly and with more discipline. We think fit to repeat this judgment here: "Under the name of Eusebius of Emesa there circulate homilies on the Gospels for the entire year, and again fifty homilies of various topics, most eloquent. St. Jerome mentions a certain Eusebius of Emesa, whom he said wrote many things and lived during the time of the Emperor Constantius, son of Constantine the Great. But his works do not exist, and for that reason we have not placed him in his proper time (that is, the 4th century). However, this man is either another Eusebius of Emesa—wherever he may have derived this name—or these homilies were published under a supposititious name, since the true author was unknown. Nor do those short homilies on all the Gospels seem to be by the same author as the fifty homilies on various topics; for the style is very different. This is certain: the author of the fifty homilies was a Latin and a monk in the monastery of Lérins; for Homily V, *To the Monks*, indicates that he was an abbot of a monastery established on an island. Likewise, the homily on St. Maximus calls that island Lérins. It seems that from being Abbot of Lérins he was made a bishop, as he himself hints in his homily on St. Blandina. He also argues against the Pelagians in the homily for Thursday in Holy Week; whence it is manifest that he is not Eusebius of Emesa, who flourished under Constantius. There are those who attribute these homilies to Eucherius, Bishop of Lyons; nor are there wanting those who name the author Caesarius of Arles. I have seen one of these homilies marked with the name of Faustus, Bishop of Riez; and it is not improbable that they are all by the same Faustus, who was abbot of the Lérins monastery, and was created bishop from being an abbot, as Gennadius testifies. I do not define whose they are, but at this point it has pleased me to establish the author of those homilies, since whether it be Eucherius, or Faustus, or even Caesarius, he did not live before this time."

This is Bellarmine, whom all learned men from either Church agree with, whose judgment has some weight in matters of this kind. Of the genuine Eusebian homilies written in the Greek language, nothing remains except those three which were first brought to light by us and are then to be examined. ^B

A third witness remains, who indeed did not live before the 13th century, but whose testimony is of some value for that very reason, because he was a Syrian. He is Ebed-Jesu (called elsewhere Bar-Bricha, who, adorned with the dignity of Metropolitan among the Nestorian Syrians, departed this life in the year 1318), who, in the metric *Catalogue of Ecclesiastical Writers* edited by Abraham Ecchellensis at Rome in 1653, and more correctly by Assemani in *Bibliotheca Orientalis*, vol. III, part 1, chapter 36, has these words:

"Eusebius Chemzoio (Emesenus) composed: *Book Against the Jews*; *Questions on the Old (Testament)*; *Homily on Stephen*."

Therefore, he lists three books, the first of which is the one we have noted. Among the books strictly so called—or if he had considered them as homilies—he would undoubtedly have used the title of "orations" (see Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.*, vol. III, part 1, p. 3; vol. II, p. 154; vol. I, p. 61, and passim). The polemical book *Against the Jews*, therefore, which we lack, seems to have still existed among the Syrians at the time of Ebed-Jesu; although not even this is placed beyond all doubt. For he does not say that he himself had read it as still existing, but simply lists it as a work of Eusebius.

The same applies to the two other writings of which only Ebed-Jesu makes mention. How we wish, however, that he had described the *Questions on the Old Testament* in greater detail, so that at least what kind of work this was, which perished to the great detriment of letters, might be understood to some extent. But now nothing is certain, other than that our Emesenus was also an interpreter of the Old Testament, about whom writers before the 13th century are silent. For the title *Questions* (not to be explained from the Syriac, for the word *sadam* means "he mocked," "he treated badly," etc.; but [taken] from the Greek *zētēma*, which is read in the Syriac version of Acts XVI, 15) is not wont to indicate a homiletic character, but an exegetical one.

The *Homily on Stephen* treated a subject which Christian homilists of that era, when martyrdom was held in such great honor, seem to have loved above all others; for in almost all sermons about the saints, Stephen, *ho prōtomartys*, is celebrated in panegyrical orations. Without doubt, this lost oration of ours was of the same kind and character, as was the oration on John the Baptist.

Finally, we learn from Assemani, *Bibl. Orient.*, vol. II, p. 28, that Xenaias, the most celebrated bishop of Mabug (or Hieropolis), who is called Philoxenus by the Greeks, and whose Syriac version of the Holy Scriptures we still possess under the title "Philoxenian," strengthened his singular opinion concerning the person of Jesus Christ (i.e., Monophysite) with the testimonies of Ephrem Syrus, Chrysostom, Cyril of Alexandria, and Eusebius of Emesa. ^D However, the testimonies of Eusebius of Emesa are added as having been taken from that man's book *On the Faith*; from a *Homily on New Changes*; and from a *Homily delivered at Berytus*. Behold, therefore, three new treatises of our author, none of which, however, is preserved. Perhaps the book *On the Faith* was the same one from which Theodoret, in the third dialogue, drew two fragments concerning the person of Jesus Christ, which we have exhibited.

But now, returning to that of which we first spoke, and yielding to the words of the most learned Joseph von Eichenfeld, to whose singular kindness and care these things are owed, it must be said that, besides the three orations edited by us, no other small work of Eusebius of Emesa exists in the Imperial Library of Vienna. Therefore, by the good grace of so excellent a man, the entire passage looking toward this view...

from the letter given to us on June 16, 1826, we append in the author's own words for our readers: "The true goal of the present writing, however, is to dispel any doubt that there might be any more works of Eusebius of Emesa in the Court Library than the three homilies provided. The Court Library possesses only two codices in which works of Eusebius of Emesa appear: namely, cod. theol. Gr. 248 Lambec. (now, according to Nessel, 307) and cod. theol. Gr. 176 (now 284). The former contains three homilies in the following order:

• I. Heading: *Blessed Eusebius’ discourse on the presence of John in Hades, and those imprisoned there.* Above, and et seqq., stands furthermore: *and on the betrayal of Judas* (the subject of the second homily). Beginning: *It is necessary for us today again to investigate and know, what manner of gospel it is*, etc.

• II. Heading: *Discourse by the same on the betrayal.* Beginning: *Come then, my beloved son, and concerning the betrayal*, etc.

• III. Heading: *Eusebius’ discourse on the devil and Hades, after Judas had betrayed the Lord.* Beginning: *It is just for us today, beloved*, etc.

Cod. theol. Gr. 176 (now 284) contains only one homily with the heading: *Discourse of our holy Father Eusebius against the Jews, a syllogistic refutation*, and begins: *It is just for us today, beloved*, etc. This homily is ^B of the same content as the third one contained in the previous codex; but, as Your Honor yourself has noted, it is to be viewed as a different edition, since it contains partly less, partly more, than what appears in the previous codex. The equality of the content of these two homilies was already noted by Kollar in the notes to his edition of Lambecius. I share with Your Honor both of Kollar's notes here, as his edition of Lambecius is perhaps not at your disposal (14). He says, namely, in Note A to Lambecius, lib. IV, cod. 176, col. 409: *This discourse of Eusebius of Emesa is not different from that which is held in our Commentaries, lib. V, cod. 248, n. 4, inscribed with the title: In Diabolum et Infernum. Therefore, those who think it is different are to be corrected: Cave, Hist. lit. script. eccl., t. I, p. 207; Oudin, t. I, p. 424; and Fabricius, Bibl. Gr., vol. VI, p. 157. It seems still to be unpublished.* And Note C to lib. V, col. 248, col. 286: *Whether these three homilies are genuine, I cannot say; yet they still seem to be unpublished. As regards the third, it is not different from that which is held in lib. V, cod. 176, n. 4, and is inscribed: Contra Judaeos. See what I note about the same in lib. IV, col. 409, note A; to which I would like to add that Fabricius seems to err likewise, while* ^C he attributes these three homilies to Eusebius of Alexandria in the *Eclogae* and *Lives of the Saints*, vol. VI and XI, in the *Bibliotheca Graeca*, against the evidence of our heading.

Of this homily contained in cod. theol. Gr. 176 (now 284) with the heading: *Discourse of our holy Father Eusebius against the Jews, a syllogistic refutation*, which Your Honor has already published, Lambecius speaks in the review of this manuscript when he says: *Saint Jerome remembers this discourse (not book) against the Jews in the book De script. eccl., c. 91; Eusebius of Emesenus – but very many.* – But he concludes clearly incorrectly when he identifies our homily with the now no longer extant, or at least not yet discovered, work of E.E. *Adversus Judaeos et gentes*; rather, it plainly belongs among the aforementioned *Homilias breves in Evangelia*."

Thus Gen. de Eichenfeld, whose judgment in this matter must certainly be of the greatest authority for us. I omit more from his letters, especially those things which a most kind man added regarding my own modest merit concerning the previously completely neglected Emesenus. This one thing I add, that his agreement in the judgment regarding the book of Eusebius against the Jews, about which I had explained my own opinion above, is pleasing and most welcome to me.

I have no more concerning the person and writings of our Eusebius, and I will be exceedingly glad if some learned man either wishes or is able to provide more and better things. Regarding our collection, such as it is, of Eusebian minor works, it immediately appears that it contains minor works of a threefold kind: ^D I. Homiletic, i.e., treating various arguments, but forming a homiletic trilogy. II. Dogmatic, i.e., two fragments preserved by Theodoret, in which a certain part of the doctrine concerning the person of Jesus Christ is set forth. III. Exegetical, i.e., some excerpts from the Chains of the Fathers, which under the name of Eusebius contain several specimens of interpretation, concerning which, however, it is not clearly established whether they belong to the Emesene or to another Eusebius.

Anyone will immediately see that the homiletic minor works come into the census before the rest and obtain the first place, since the dogmatic ones are too brief and meager, while the exegetical ones are doubtful and suspect. Furthermore, there are fragments, which likewise applies to the dogmatic ones, from which the genuine character of the writer is recognized with more difficulty than from complete and continuous orations. To these, therefore, our care must be chiefly dedicated.

That our orations are a genuine work of Eusebius of Emesa, with Lambecius and other learned men, I have no doubt. Yet less seems to be attributed to external arguments than to internal ones. It is certainly something that they are exhibited by two Greek manuscript codices...[NOTE 14] I acknowledge the sagacity of this most learned man. For Kollar’s new edition of the Lambecian Commentaries is sought in vain among us and in our vicinity, nor could I inspect any other than the first, which appeared in 1671.

as being quite ancient, and in no way suspect. But we know that in many codices of the same character are contained Homilies under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus, Athanasius, Epiphanius, and others, which nevertheless have not proceeded from those authors, but are supposititious: something which is judged by the argument, the manner of treatment, and the style. In our work, therefore, we must proceed in such a way that internal arguments show that there is nothing contained in these orations which could not have proceeded from a writer of the 4th century, and which, with some appearance of truth, seems able to be attributed to another person than the Emesene, a man so singular. But these matters will be discussed in the following chapter and in various places.

CAP. II. On the character and economy of the Eusebian orations.

^B Among the ancients, Jerome alone (De viris illustr. c. 91) has judged Eusebius of Emesa as an orator. He says, however: "He composed innumerable books of elegant and rhetorical genius, which pertain to the applause of the people, and he followed history rather, and is read most studiously by those who wish to declaim." Those who find in this judgment an exalted praise of our Father (a sentiment we read expressed by many) err greatly and are ignorant of the nature, genius, custom, and usage of speech of Jerome. Those who understand both will not deny that he wished by these words to vituperate Eusebius rather than praise him.

Henry Gravius, in his observations on this passage (repeated in Fabricius, Bibl. eccles. p. 181), seems to have perceived this. For he brings forward from other writings of Jerome many testimonies by which it shines forth what kind of patron of elegant and rhetorical geniuses and of popular eloquence (i.e., for the applause of the people) Jerome was. The passages alleged by Gravius are Jerome's epistle to Cyprian; the Preface to Isaiah; the Commentary on Ezekiel xviii, xxii; on Ecclesiastes x; and on Matthew xi. He inveighs against those teachers who endeavor to deceive and stroke the ears of the ignorant with composed and artificial oratory, the elegance of words, and popular applause. He rebukes those whose ears are fastidious and who are nauseated by the understanding of the Scriptures, and are delighted only by the applause of eloquence. Finally he says: "When this understanding offers a certain applause and color of doctrine, I do not know if it holds the truth." To these testimonies I add another from Jerome, Epist. II to Nepotianus, where these things occur: "When you are teaching in the church, let not the clamor of the people be stirred up, but groans. Let the tears of your auditors be your praises. Let the discourse of a presbyter be seasoned with the lection of the Scriptures. I do not want you to be a declaimer and a noisy brawler without reason, but a master of mysteries and most learned in the sacraments of your God. Words ^C to make oneself the object of admiration among an unlearned crowd is the mark of unlearned men. A brazen face often interprets what it does not know, and when it has persuaded others, it usurps knowledge for itself. Nothing is so easy as to deceive a base and unlearned mob with the volubility of the tongue, since it admires more strongly whatever it does not understand."

Many testimonies could be gathered from this author which prove how much he abhorred rhetorical arts, poetic ornament, and dramatic plays in those whose duty it is to hold the truth and simplicity of the Christian religion and to deliver it to the Christian people. In a Christian doctor, according to Jerome’s sentiment, not genius and elegance, not the art of declaiming and the facility of speaking, is the chief virtue, but truth, the pursuit of piety, and simplicity. Nor does the Stridonian alone—although a somewhat more severe and morose appraiser and judge of these things—judge so; but he has those very eminent holy orators of the ancient Church, Basil the Great, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Augustine, and many others, as agreeing. All these vituperate rhetorical arts, declamations, and theatrical pomp, and commend simplicity. There is no need to prove a clear matter with many testimonies; but we only wish for it to be granted to us that Jerome, while he attributes an elegant and rhetorical genius to the Emesene, as well as the art of declamation (in which an example is proposed to others), by no means wished to praise this orator, but rather to vituperate him. For if not, he would be clearly inconsistent with himself and, impugning his own principles, would have praised in him what he is accustomed to condemn in kind and species elsewhere, and even in his own friends, such as Epiphanius and Augustine were.

But in another way still, and by what they call historical induction, it can be argued how little of a patron Jerome was of the Emesene. Indeed, in the same book, c. 119, he writes concerning Diodorus of Tarsus: "There exist many other things of his, pertaining more to the character of Eusebius of Emesa; having followed whose sense, he could not imitate his eloquence, on account of his ignorance of secular literature." In these words there is indeed praise of the Eusebian eloquence; but the author hints at the same time that it is not truly Christian, but rather secular eloquence. As far as the character of Eusebius concerns the interpretation of Holy Scripture and dogmatic principles, these words are to be understood, in which he by no means agreed with Diodorus, whose teacher and master at the same time he rebukes. Furthermore, the same author, in c. 129, has of John Chrysostom: "John (15), presbyter of the Antiochene church, a follower of Eusebius of Emesa and Diodorus, is said to compose many things, of which I have read only the On the Priesthood. He passes over in silence all..."

^A books of which Chrysostom was the author, before he was summoned to the See of Constantinople, and speaks of the most brilliant orator with such brevity and stinginess of praise that you can easily understand that his very name is hateful to him: a fact which appears more clearly from Jerome's ep. 88 to Theophilus, and from Facundus' *Defense of the Three Chapters*, bk. vi, c. 5. In the disciple and follower, he attacks the master once again.

Whatever, however, may be the case regarding this judgment of Jerome, whether true or false, he himself is an unwilling witness to the great fame and glory which the Emesene orator attained, no less among his contemporaries than among posterity. He himself confesses that our author enjoyed the reputation of an excellent orator and was regarded as an example by those who wish to declaim. And certainly disciples and followers of such a kind as Diodorus and Chrysostom were, adorn their master in the eyes of all who are not possessed by the crabbedness of the Stridonian.

There is, however, one thing in this testimony (to which, as the unique witness from antiquity, we must cling for a little while); regarding it, lest it be understood in a twisted sense, readers must be warned in a few words.

Jerome says: *Eusebius followed history more.* What does "History" mean in this passage? If he had written in the nineteenth century, perhaps he might have thought of the history of sacred sermons or universal history or the history of the 18th century, such as Rosenmüller, Stolz, and others have composed; but that age in which Jerome lived was strictly foreign to such a ^B *transference to another genus*. Nor is it to be understood as the history of religion, the Church, and dogmas; for in the sermons of our author which we possess, we find nothing of that kind. To express it succinctly, among the writers of the fourth and fifth centuries of both Churches, *historia* is opposed to allegory and *theoria*, and is understood as the literal or historical sense of the Holy Scriptures. Among Isidore of Pelusium, ep. lib. v, epist. 117, *hermeneia kath' historian* is distinguished from *theoria* and allegory. The allegorical genus of interpreting and teaching, whose chief author and patron was Origen, was especially conspicuous in that it despised the literal and grammatical sense, and dragged all the utterances of Holy Scripture toward things more sublime, invisible, and intelligible, so that they were explained ^C *mystikōs* and *anagogikōs*. In particular, this genus of interpretation was applied in places where the discourse is about the person of Jesus Christ, and in the prophecies of the Old Testament concerning Christ. This method of interpretation is opposed by Cosmas Indicopleustes (a follower of Diodorus of Tarsus) in *Topogr. Chr.* lib. v, p. 227, as an interpretation which is: *Eis ton Christon monon kai kyriōs, kata rhēton kai kath' historian* (Towards Christ alone and properly, according to the literal word and according to history). The word *theoria* is frequently the same as what is also called *philosophēma*, *philosophoumenon*, *philosophein*, etc., and its propriety consists in this, that while it indeed proceeds from Holy Scripture (for no sacred sermon in the ancient Church exists without ^D Scripture), it does not follow its text and letter closely, but according to talent and dialectical art it establishes a sense which seemed suitable to the intention of the orator. Hence it happened that *theoria* and allegory often, as much in principle as in effect, did not differ from one another, but conspired.

In these matters, we have the most acute estimator and interpreter of such things currently in agreement. In J. A. Ernesti's *Opuscula theol.*, 2nd ed., Leipzig 1792, there is presented a *Critical Narrative on the Interpretation of Messianic Prophecies in the Christian Church*, where many things are set forth accurately regarding historical, mystical, and allegorical interpretation. While we refer readers to this most learned dissertation, for our own purpose we select from it only that which was written about our author, pp. 449-450. After the author has set forth the allegorical interpretation of Origen and its inconvenience, he proceeds thus: "Moved by that inconvenience, I think, or for some other cause, Eusebius of Emesa was the first, as far as we know, to distinguish those different genera, and in interpreting to follow that mode which would hold to history, and only now and then refer prophecies to Christ, using in disputation only those in which the discourse was properly and uniquely about him (Hieron. *Cat. script. eccl.* c. 119), which perhaps he did especially in his work against the Jews (ibid. c. 91); just as he rejected in speaking and writing the whole allegorical genus, which drags history toward intelligible things. Although his books were read by very many, yet the matter was not much remarked upon, or criticized, or dragged into odium against him: either because his eloquence, for which they were read so greedily, covered the matter, or because there was nothing in his fortune to be envied. And there were other things at that time which occupied minds and tongues and quills."

The author then speaks of Eusebius' disciple, Diodorus of Tarsus (16), and his two most famous disciples, Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chrysostom, both of whom adorned more and more the historical interpretation which the Emesene had pioneered. Theodore of Mopsuestia, in his book *Against the Allegorists*, greatly displeased the followers of Origen, and was accused of Judaism by them, since he had been the tutor of Nestorius and Theodoret. In the Nestorian controversy, there is often talk of Judaizing opinions, and the most famous formula of Nestorius, *Christotokos*, has its origin in that interpretation *kath' historian*. Behold, therefore, our author as the predecessor and, as it were, the leader of the controversies by which the fifth century was so greatly disturbed!

But I have considered that the phrase "followed history" extends more widely than in the exposition of prophecies concerning Christ.

NOTES. (16) It is wonderful that Ernesti omitted the testimony regarding Diodorus of Tarsus, which pertains to this matter more than the others, in Socrates, *Hist. eccl.* bk. vi, c. 3: "Diodorus, having become Bishop of Tarsus, wrote many books, attending to the bare letter of the divine Scriptures, and turning aside from their *theoriai*." In which words the character of both the master (Eusebius) and the disciple (Diodorus) is most excellently expressed.

From our three orations, we see that the custom of Emesenus was, in his sacred sermons, not to construct individual dogmas, not to refute heretics, not to linger on individual passages of Holy Scripture and interpret them allegorically or mystically; but to embellish a certain cycle of sacred histories, and to unfold their entire context. In this genre of treatment, he imitated the Greek tragedians, with whom a number of the doctors of the Church had also established a great familiarity, as can be seen from Athenagoras, Clement of Alexandria, and others. Our author is praised, as was mentioned in ch. 1 from Socrates and Sozomen, for having been diligently steeped in Greek literature; and Jerome (ch. 119) attributes to him an eloquence arising from his knowledge of secular learning. Why, therefore, should we not hold him to be skilled and well-instructed in this area as well?

Now, indeed, as it is agreed among all, it is the solemn, not to say perpetual, custom of tragic poets to choose a subject (*hypothesin*) from mythology (that is, history) for the sake of poetic freedom, and to adapt it in a dramatic manner (*dramatikos*). They do not invent events, but follow history, and tell the fates and deeds of illustrious persons, relying not on their own fabrications, but on historical tradition. An example can be the history of Prometheus, Oedipus, Agamemnon, Orestes, and other tragic figures, which Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides treat so often, and embellish in various ways with the poetic genius and art in which they excel. While they follow the historical tradition, they are historians; but while they indulge their genius and art, they are poets. Moreover, they are accustomed not to treat individual, separate, and as it were disconnected stories, but to propose the entire scope and tenor of the history they have chosen, and, by attending to the antecedents and consequences, to illustrate the whole context. Ancient rhetoricians and artists called this type of treatment a "dramatic cycle" (*kyklon dramatikon*) and either a "trilogy" or "tetralogy" (*dramatikēn*); and so many survive to this day (though more have perished) that we can form a firm judgment on this matter.

But we do not wish to teach a matter sufficiently well-known and explained by Valckenaer, Heyne, Schütz, Hermann, Blümner, our own Welcker, and many other men who are far more learned and better at this genre than we could be. We only wish to point out that our author had the dramatic trilogies of the Greek tragedians before his eyes, and that he imitated them as far as the reason and economy of Christian doctrine would permit. This was certainly done in the three homilies which we now have ready for our use, which constitute a true "dramatic trilogy" (*trilogian dramatikēn*), and concerning whose nature and economy we shall explain a little later.

The most ingenious and learned H. Th. Tzschirner, *o makaritēs* (the blessed), in his *Commentary on the famous orators of the ancient Church* (comment. vi, p. 6), concerning the Eusebian oration published by us as a specimen in the year 1820, offered this judgment: "This Homily is handled quite ornately and elegantly, and it pertains to the 'Christian Mythology' and to that genre which you might not inappropriately call poetic." He proceeds then, p. 7: "Here is the argument of the Homily of Eusebius of Emesa, worthy of note for this reason above all: that from it, one understands that in his time, both Christian Mythology received significant growth, and sacred eloquence sometimes wandered into the fields of poetry, and carried away from them things which would make for the mere delight of the listeners." ^A

^B Nor did the blessed author judge wrongly in this, when he referred the sacred orations of Emesenus to Christian Mythology and to a poetic genre. Nor is the judgment of Jerome, in which he affirmed that he followed history, contrary to this. For both genres, the historical and the poetic, can have a place; and our author, in a like manner to Aeschylus, Sophocles, and Euripides, combined history with poetry. He takes his material from true and biblical history (employing also accounts outside of the four Gospels), and he does not change its order and context; but in form, following his own genius, he embellishes it, illustrates it with images, and supplies from his own genius or from historical tradition the connection where it has been omitted. He holds to almost the same method that we see the most outstanding Christian poets to have followed: Milton in *Paradise Lost*, Klopstock in *The Messiah*, Tasso in *Jerusalem Delivered*, and many others.

He seems to have been the first of all in the Christian Church who introduced this genre of preaching and was the prince of this sacred eloquence. Yet the palm seems to be snatched from him by Gregory Neo-Caesariensis, or the Thaumaturge, who is believed to have issued homilies very similar to ours a whole century before Emesenus (for he died in the year 265). For there are among the works of Gregory Neo-Caesariensis (Edit. Paris, 1622) four homilies, three of which are on the Annunciation of the Holy Theotokos, and the fourth on the Feast of the Theophany and the baptism of Christ. In these orations, we have a homiletic drama; for all and each of the characters—God the Father, Christ, Mary, the Archangel Gabriel, etc.—are introduced as speaking; and the fourth homily contains ^C a dialogue between John the Baptist, who deprecates the baptism requested of Christ, and uses many arguments by which he would deter Him from this intention, and Christ, who refutes these arguments and insists on baptism. More things are present that agree entirely with the Eusebian homilies; and the brevity itself can be testimony that one is an imitation of the other.

But almost all learned men doubt that they are genuine. Let us hear from among many, Du-Pin (Nov. Bibl. auct. eccl. p. 1, p. 289): "I have no doubt that the discourses bearing the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus are by another author. For besides the fact that none of the ancients makes mention of them, they are written in a very different style." Second, the author of these discourses ^D concerning the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation

speaks in such a way that it appears he lived after the heresies of the Arians and Nestorians had arisen. He uses the name Theotokos more studiously and more often when he speaks of the Virgin Mary, whose praises he profusely celebrates, which was only in use after the Council of Ephesus. Finally, it is manifest that these homilies were composed at a time when the Church was enjoying peace and celebrated feast days with great solemnity. Three discourses on the Annunciation relish the ^A style of Proclus of Constantinople. The last of these three discourses is even attributed to Chrysostom, but the diversity of style contradicts this. The fourth, concerning the baptism of Christ, whose feast day is celebrated on the day of the Epiphany, is more elegant than the three preceding ones, and it seems to be by another author, who is not, however, Gregory Thaumaturgus, for the reasons already brought forth: the name Theotokos and the term consubstantial are found in them. Oudinus agrees (vol. I, pp. 294-96), assigning a later age to these homilies.

If these things are true, as no one will doubt, it follows that the author, who wrote under the name of Gregory Thaumaturgus, composed these homilies in the imitation of Eusebius of Emesa, with whom they so much agree, if you set aside the dogmatic portions.

The same applies to Methodius, bishop of Tyre, who suffered martyrdom under Diocletian around a.d. 303. In his *Works and Fragments* (ed. Fr. Combefisius, Paris, 1644), there exist two sermons on the Nativity of Christ and *On the Oblation of Christ in the Temple*, which is also inscribed *On Simeon and Anna*. Each approaches a dramatic form and is notable for a long dialogue between Mary and Simeon. Moreover, he attacks the allegories of Origen and his other errors; a fact which seems to mark Methodius as an adversary of Origen. But there are so many traces of a later age (concerning the Trinity, the Incarnation, original sin, the virginity of Mary, and other similar things) that the opinion has long since prevailed among learned men that they are not genuine, but were falsely attributed to him after the Council of Ephesus. See Oudinus, vol. I, pp. 303-306. Given this, our author could not have had these homilies before his eyes, having rather composed his own according to that model.

We have, therefore, no one older in this genre of preaching, and our author, having become a leader and forerunner in it, found many imitators: this is also indicated by the words of Jerome, who is read most studiously by those who wish to declaim. Many are found among his contemporaries who are similar to him in this poetic style of treatment and who surpass him in the adornment, pomp, and luxury of their oratory: such are Gregory Nazianzen, Epiphanius, and especially Ephrem the Syrian, who approached not only dithyrambs but also dialogues. Whether they had the Emesene as a leader and predecessor does not clearly appear. This, however, is certain: Theodoret and Chrysostom were also his followers in this regard, differing in this one and primary respect, that they, departing from the *breviloquium* of the Emesene (which Jerome already indicates as his own, *Short Homilies*), ^B wandered into that *makrologia* in which the Greeks so greatly delight. In his *breviloquium* he had rather Latin imitators. Furthermore, we find no homiletic *trilogia* of this kind among either Greeks or Latins, and our own must in truth be considered a *hapax legomenon*.

These things having been premised in general, as was fitting, we must now speak of the economy which our author employs in the three sacred orations that we possess.

At first glance, they seem to be of varied subject matter and to respond little to the title of *trilogia* by which we said they must be distinguished. For the first is inscribed concerning the advent and annunciation of John the Baptist in the underworld; the second, concerning the betrayal of Judas; the third (conflated from one into two), concerning the devil and Hades, or as a disputation against the Jews. Therefore, a great diversity of subject matter and a passage into a different genus appears to be present. But those who judge so cursorily are mistaken; when the matter is considered more accurately, it is understood how well and tightly everything coheres and returns to one head, as it were. Behold the economy continued through three orations, and adorned in harmony with the reason of time, persons, and argument (the hypothesis or object of the treatment)!

Our three orations treat matters performed at the same time, the memory of which was piously observed by the Christian Church in Holy Week, which is also called the Passion Week, or the Great, or the Holy, or the Saving Week (see Jo. Fæs., *De Hebdomade magna*, Brem. 1693, pp. 19-53, and our own book: *Denkwürdigkeiten aus der chr. Archæologie*, vol. II, pp. 34 ff.). This economy of time, however, does not entirely correspond to that which now obtains in the Church and which has obtained from the fifth and sixth centuries. The argument of the second and third orations indeed coincides with the solemnity and object of the sixth and seventh days (concerning the betrayal of Judas and the descent of Christ into the underworld); but the memory of John the Baptist has nothing in common with those days. His birth, as is established among all, is celebrated on the 24th of June, and in the Greek and Latin Churches the feast of the Decollation of John is observed on the 29th of August, the origin of which is referred to the finding of the head of John in the time of Julian the Apostate (therefore shortly after the death of Eusebius). Sozomen, *Hist.* lib. VII, c. 21; Rufinus, *h. e.* lib. II, c. 28. See our book: *Denkwürdigkeiten aus der chr. Archæol.*, vol. II, pp. 185 ff. Is there not, therefore, a passage to another time in our author? Beware of saying so. In his time, neither feast was yet in use, and thus the Oriental Church seems to have received them long after the Occidental. It would not, therefore, be done correctly if you wished to judge according to the customs of a later age.

Since, therefore, there was no ordered festival of John the Baptist in the Church at that time, our author celebrates the memory of the forerunner at the time when he was believed to have suffered martyrdom, i.e., before Easter. In the *Roman Martyrology* for the 29th of August, p. 229, it reads: “The Decollation of Saint John the Baptist, whom

^A Herod commanded to be beheaded around the time of the feast of Pascha.” However, his memory is solemnly celebrated on this day, when his venerable head was found for the second time, which was later transferred to Rome and is preserved in the church of St. Sylvester at the Campus Martius with the highest devotion of the people.

To be compared with these are the things which J. Lightfoot observed in *Horae Hebraicae*, p. 182: “We derive the time of the decollation of John the B(aptist) from these words in John VI, 4: ‘The Pascha was now near,’ by this line of reasoning. Without controversy, it can be concluded that the disciples, as soon as they heard of their master’s death and buried him, betook themselves to Christ, narrating the slaughter of their master and thereby offering him caution that he might take thought for his own safety. Upon hearing the news, he passed into the desert of Bethsaida and there miraculously fed five thousand men, when the Pascha was already present, as reports John, reviewing this history with the Evangelists. We think, therefore, that the decapitation of the Baptist took place shortly before Pascha, since he had already suffered imprisonment for a year and a half, just as he had preached for a year and a half before his incarceration.”

With good right, however, could he join this commemoration with the solemnities of Holy Week, since the law and ecclesiastical custom, which directed that all other feasts from this time be dedicated and consecrated to Christ alone, were not yet in force (17). And anyone who attends to the connection of both the person and the matter sees how fitting this conjunction is.

^C John the Baptist is Christ's forerunner and herald, not only in office and duty during his life, but also in death and after death. Our author, while setting this forth, has invented nothing nor brought forth anything new and unheard of, but followed an opinion almost common in his own age, as we shall show below. He presents, therefore, the one who “completed the course” (as he says on p. 4) as descending to the underworld, and there announcing to the prophets of the Old Testament that the advent of Christ is soon to be. He rouses each one, so that they themselves may set forth whatever they have prophesied concerning the person and fate of Christ: the pronouncements are therefore recited from David, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Hosea, and Zechariah (speaking ^D concerning each stewardship, p. 6), which, under their own name and title, Holy Scripture of the O.T. contains regarding the earthly life of Jesus Christ.

This catalog of witnesses is followed by a dialogue between Hades and the Devil, in which the latter explains his plan concerning the slaughter of John, concerning the plots of the Jews, and concerning the betrayal of Judas; and Hades, terrified by the prophecies of the prophets, reveals his fear and exhorts him to be of good courage and to be willing to aid their common cause. Having done this, the devil returns to the world to weave his snares against Christ. He finds Judas prepared and suborns him to perpetrate the crime of betrayal. The author concludes his oration with an apostrophe to the listeners, and piously exhorts them to flee disobedience (παρακοήν), the fountain of all evils, and the enticements of Satan, and to preserve a firm faith.

The second oration deals more amply with the betrayal of Judas. But the title is well inscribed not *Concerning the Betrayal*, but *A Discursive Oration concerning the Betrayal*. Few are the things he recounts concerning the traitor, with the evangelists as guides. He lingers primarily on the words of Mark xiv, 4, 5; and Matt. xxvi, 15, and from there takes the occasion to declaim against the traitor. He paints in the most vivid colors the ingratitude, impiety, and madness of Judas, and paints them in such a way that it appears he by no means wished to act merely as a historian or poet while neglecting the moral aspect (ἠθικῷ μέρει), but rather had before his eyes that Horatian rule (A. P. 333): “They wish both to delight and to be of service.”

In the third oration he completes the thread of the narrative concerning Judas, which had been continued in the two orations (18). Christ had said, as witnessed by Matt. xxvi, 38: *My soul is sorrowful even unto death.* These words were pronounced due to sorrow for Judas’s impiety and the punishment (cf. p. 14: *He was grieved and distressed concerning that wretched man's soul, because he would perish*). The Devil, deceived in a wonderful way, interprets it as if Christ feared death, and therefore could not be the Son of God. While he supposes this, therefore, he approaches Hades, the lord of the underworld, tells him that everything necessary for the death of Christ is prepared, and asks him to receive Christ. Hades, however, does not add faith to the devil's words and opposes to him the example of Lazarus raised from the dead and the preaching (τὸ κήρυγμα) of John the Baptist and the prophets. In the dialogue between Hades and the devil, the latter indeed confesses that Christ was often contrary to him (many times he showed opposite things) and did many things which, how they were done, he did not know (he always repeats the formula *how*, or *whence*, I do not know); yet he always returns to his most pernicious prejudice: *I am convinced that he is a man, fearing death.*

Hades doubts, and exhorts the devil to desist from such a plan and rash attempt. He, however, laughs at his fear and promises to hand over Christ dead in a short time, whom Hades promises to receive with him if the devil should emerge victorious. But the matter turns out far differently. For when the devil sees the miracles of Christ’s death, terrified he flees to Hades and beseeches him not to receive the coming Christ, but to deny him entry. Hades vehemently NOTE. (17) So rigorously is the law observed, that even the Mother, though she is held in such great honor, in this case must yield to the Son! For whenever the Feast of the Annunciation of Mary, 25 March, falls in Holy Week, it is transferred to the Sunday after Pascha. Clearly, therefore, the opposite [is the case] than in the feast of the Nativity of Christ, where many solemnities (the birth of Christ, Stephen the protomartyr, John the evangelist, and the Innocents) are joined together. (18) [Referring to] the words on p. 16: “Whom John and the prophets spoke of,” etc.

^A He rebukes the devil, who is even now lamenting and acknowledging his own error and folly. But while they are still arguing, Christ is present without delay—the victor over death and hell—surrounded by a host of angels; he opens the gates of hell with his divine power, casts the devil, bound in eternal chains, into the abyss, and frees the prophets and all pious souls enclosed in hell, leading them into paradise. The prayer concludes with the mockery of the devil, and with thanksgiving and a doxology brought forth by the choir of prophets in praise of the victor.

When the argument of these three continuous orations is rightly considered, anyone can see that the common homiletic theme is the devil deceived and brought low. The most crafty adversary of the pious is caught, ensnared in his own stratagems, and it happens as Hades had predicted: "A laughingstock of the righteous, an object of derision for the saints, weak and without effect" (p. 26). Our author seems to have been the first, as we have already said, to explain this subject in a public discourse and in the manner of a drama; certainly, we have no older sacred oration in which this has been done. But the matter itself had been treated by the very first doctors of the Church and is derived from the very sources of the New Testament; this we shall illustrate later with several examples. ^B

As in the development of the argument, so too in his manner of speaking and style, our author departs much from other writers and homilists. We have already said that he favors brevity, and by comparison with others—first and foremost with Origen, Athanasius, Basil the Great, the Gregories, and others—it is easily understood what his style is like. It is observed as much in the matter as in the form. Jerome seems to have wanted to express both in his own way: *Short homilies*. The third oration, for the day of Preparation, is the longest and most comprehensive of all; yet who does not see that it scarcely occupies half the space used by others? And yet the gravity or richness of the argument is not missed. Not only are there many things, but what the author brings forward also amounts to much; for he expounds such a large and forest-like mass of material that it would suffice others for many more orations. If you ask where this comes from? The answer is ready.

1. Our author does not love rambling digressions, demonstrations, and arguments diffused far and wide. After the manner of poets, he carries the reader into the middle of things, and with a brief summary, he sets before the eyes what seems to be the head of the matter.

2. He does not follow the common custom of treating dogmatic and polemical theology in sacred orations. Everyone knows how much sacred tractators delight in refuting the errors of heretics, so that the sermons of many are almost nothing but prefaces and epilogues helmeted against heretics. From this custom, however, our author is far removed, bringing no heretic to the fore, and establishing the truth not *antithetically* but *thetically*. By doing this, he could be briefer than others.

3. He does not often interpret the Holy Scriptures allegorically, but historically; he does not comment on them in a diffuse manner, but quotes them simply and uses their naked testimony. There is a single such instance in oration 1, page 8, where he illustrates the words quoted from Matt. XI, 14 with a short and ingenious note: *But look*—but they took counsel; that is, so that it might be understood that the Jews did not take this evil counsel of their own accord, but with the devil as instigator.

4. He also loves not the phraseology and *perissologia ton logon* (redundancy of words); he avoids long and artificial periods and structures of words. There is in him a wonderful conciseness and parsimony, which, however, he does not abuse so that it happens according to the well-known poet's sentiment: "I labor to be brief; I become obscure."

But rather, perspicuity and a certain natural facility of speech appear everywhere. Everything he brings forward moves with an almost agitated step, and the method which he uses contributes much to augmenting the liveliness and alacrity of the style. Regarding the Greek, insofar as it appears proper and singular to our author, we will bring forward a few examples, however limited, in what follows.

It remains for us to say a few words, besides what we have noted concerning the non-allegorical but historical interpretation, about how our author quotes Holy Scripture. He very often cites passages from both the Old and New Testament, and in this too he follows the custom of the ancient doctors, in that, recognizing no discrimination at all between the Old and New Testament, he employs both as the genuine source of the Christian religion and as the most firm testimony of the word of God. Likewise, in the manner of other sacred orators, he sometimes brings forward whole passages, sometimes only individual parts of loci, or biblical phrases, without mentioning the sacred authors and without the formula of quoting used by the Fathers: *The Lord says, as is said in the Scripture, according to that which was spoken*, and similar things.

But you will say: In the cited passages, the author quite often does not express the canonical text of Holy Scripture, but departs from it in various ways—either by adding something, or omitting, or substituting another word; so much so that he seems to have had before his eyes and followed a text other than the one we have now. That is entirely the case; but it does not follow from this that which you say. Let us beware, therefore, lest we establish a critical rule from homiletic habit and, so to speak, negligence. The chief passages in which he departs from the received text are noted in the critical notes appended to the orations. See p. 5, 6, 9, 12, 20, 30, and others. If you consider them more attentively, you will not find even a trace of a variant reading. In the passages cited on p. 9, he conjoins several testimonies from Isaiah and the Gospels, not indeed complete and arranged in their own order, but contracted and slightly transposed, and he uses them for no other purpose than that of [depicting] the stubbornness and infidelity of the Jews, and the invitation and promise of Christ to those who scorn salvation, from the consonance of the O. and N. T. A grave...