Introduction Xxiii

Introduction

GENERAL ABSTRACT OF EVENTS IN EUSEBIUS' HISTORY

THIS worK, the most important that has come down to us from Eusebius of Caesarea and the most important of any, perhaps, that have come to us from the earlier fathers of the church, embraced the events of the first three centuries down to the time when Constantine became sole master of the Roman world. It was divided into ten books in chronological order and opened with a preliminary discourse, the matter of which was strictly theological. It was an apology and exposition of Christian doctrine. The design was chiefly to exhibit the Christian religion in its true antiquity, dignity, and excellence on grounds derived from the titles, offices, and exalted nature and dignity of its blessed Author and from a comparative view of facts and passages of the Old Testament, showing that the person and doctrine of Christ had been the object of faith and hope from the most remote ages. church. In this connection, Eusebius accounted for the seeming difficulty that the gospel was not sooner introduced, or rather, why this divine dispensation was so long delayed. After this summary, the true object of the work begins—the history of the church (bk. 1, p. 28).

In the first book, the time when our Lord was born being an important historical fact, authorities were quoted corroborating the statement of St. Luke and settling the question as to when this happy event occurred

(chap. 5). The coincidence with the language of prophecy was then illustrated by a reference to the state of the Jewish government at the time, and the seeming discrepancy between the gospels of Matthew and Luke on the genealogy of Christ was reconciled (chap. 7). Historical sketches were given respecting those who acted a prominent part in our Lord's trial and death, elucidating both the time of his ministry and the retributive visitations of Providence (chap. 8).

The last chapters of this book were chiefly occupied with accounts of John the Baptist in his relation to the Messiah and closed with the correspondence attributed to Christ and Agbarus which Eusebius translated from the records of Edessa.

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

The second book, in connection with the martyrdom of Stephen and James the Just, showed the organization of the mother church at Jerusalem under the latter of these martyrs as its bishop. The origin of the Syrian church at Edessa was interwoven with the account of Thaddeus, who was sent there by St. Thomas. The persecutions at Jerusalem having scattered the disciples, and, Providence overruling this calamity for greater good, the truths of the gospel were also scattered abroad with this dispersion. The apostles had, thus far, limited their operations to the Jews; but henceforth commenced the period of extension and catholicity.

Phoenicia, Cyprus, and Antioch were thus visited by believers, and even Ethiopia received intelligence of Christ (chap. 1), but the apostles were not fully prepared to establish the church among the Gentiles until the vision of Peter and the conversion of St. Paul dissipated all doubts. A period of peace under Tiberius was favorable to their work. Churches now everywhere arose, and Greeks at Antioch were the founders of the Christian name and of the first church among the Gentiles. The churches of Palestine and Syria were the mothers of all other churches (chap. 3).

The celebrated Judeo-platonic Philo flourished under Tiberius and Caligula and became prominent as an expounder of mystical philosophy.

He was also noted for an embassy to Rome in behalf of the Jews. The storm that had been gathering burst upon that people under Caligula and ended with the destruction of their city and temple under. Vespasian.

Returning to the prominent personalities at our Lord's death, the historian characterized Pilate and Herod, noting the manner and circumstances of their deaths (chaps. 9-10). St. Luke's account of the impostor Theudas is confirmed by a passage from Josephus, together with other facts stated by the evangelist from monuments existing in the days of Eusebius.

With the gospel now spread in the city of Rome. Simon Magnus was conspicuous as its antagonist and as a leader in heresy and licentiousness.

Eusebius, following Justin, Irenzeus, Clement, Papias, and a general tradition (chaps. 13-14), spoke of Peter's successful mission against Simon and the compilation of St. Mark's Gospel under the authority of the apostle.

Tradition also refers the foundation of the church in Egypt, to St. Mark (chaps. 15-16). The extracts from Philo in regard to the Therapeuta incline the historian to the opinion that they were either a sect of Christians or else derived their institutions from the latter (chap. 17). The works of Philo were now stated and briefly noticed when the history returned to the condition of the Jews at that time: their seditions and their

XXIV

INTRODUCTION

sufferings under the emperors Claudius and Nero; their insurrections under the notorious Egyptian impostor mentioned in the Acts of the Apostles when Felix was governor (chaps. 18-21).

The history next traced the different parts visited by St. Paul as deduced from his own writings, with a view to determine also the time of his death (chap. 22). Then followed a more full account of the death of James the Just (chap. 23), the first bishop of Jerusalem, of whose epistles there was a brief notice in connection with what were called the Seven

Catholic Epistles.

The history then related the martyrdoms of Peter and Paul, referring as authority to Caius, an ecclesiastical writer who flourished soon after the events, and also to Dionysius of Corinth. This book closed with a review of the great miseries now thickening around the Jews but did not carry us yet as far as the destruction of Jerusalem and may be said to comprise between thirty and forty years after our Lord's ascension.

The third book commenced with a succinct statement of the regions evangelized by some of the apostles. The Epistles of the apostles were reviewed according to their canonical authority, and in a digression, was added to this the account of those who immediately succeeded the apostles Peter and Paul in their labors (chap. 4). The narrative returned then to the affairs of the Jews, detailed the destruction of Jerusalem under Titus, compared the predictions of our Lord with the signs of the times, and referred to the contemporary testimony of Josephus. The works of the latter were mentioned and reviewed, together with the canon of the Old

Testament (chap. 10) and a notice of those who, under Vespasian, Titus, and Domitian, were bishops of Jerusalem, Rome, and Alexandria (chaps. 11, 13).

About this period occurred the dissensions in the church of Corinth The history of the youth recovered to the church by the efforts of St. John also were spread before us from the writings of the Alexandrian, Clement, and Irenezus.

XXV

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

the acknowledged (OuoAoyovpevot), the disputed (avtiAeyouevot), and' the spurious (vo801) (chap. 25).

A new subject offered commentary on the rise of heresies (chap. 27).

The gross errors taught by Menander, the Ebionites, and Cerinthus, and the delusions of the Nicolaitans were exhibited on the authorities of Irenzeus, Justin, Clement, and the Caius, already quoted above. The reference to the last of these errorists, as if by contrast, introduced the subject of marriage and an account of those apostles who lived in this state (chap.

30). The Epistle of Polycrates of Ephesus threw light on this subject, while the extracts from Hegesippus also showed the purer state of the church and the period about which the apostolic chair became extinct (chap. 23).

Persecution reared itself again under Trajan, and that occasioned the Epistle of Pliny and the answer of the Empero succeeded by Euarestus, while succeeded by Justus at Jerusalem. dom were noticed from the writings of Irenzeus and Polycarp. A general account of some distinguished for prophetic gifts and miracles (chap. 37), the notice of the genuine Epistle of Clement, with interesting extracts from the last works of Papias, close the third book. This brought the history down to the beginning of the second century, comprising a range of more than thirty years.

_ The fourth book exhibited the churches of Rome and Alexandria, ore prominence in their influence on the rest of the Christian his successor, the enemies of Chris ianity created persecutions which drew forth apologies from Quadratus and Aristides. The series of bishops at Jerusalem before the destruction of the city, the delusion of the impostor

Barchochebas in the eighteenth year of Adrian's reign (chap. 6), and the entire exclusion of the Jews from their ancient Jerusalem, now called

Aelia, fix our attention on the remarkable changes of that city.

Turning aside from political events to doctrines, Eusebius reviewed the heresies that grew out of those already mentioned, of which Menander,

Saturninus, and Basilides were the leaders. They were successfully opposed by Agrippa Castor (chap. 7). Carpoerates, called the father of Gnosticism, gave a new aspect to heresy. The effects of his wild speculations and the successful triumph over them stood connected with a notice of the XxVI

INTRODUCTION

From Justin Martyr, extracts were also given against arcion.

Melito, bishop of Sardis, was also quoted (chap. 13).

Much space was allotted to the character and martyrdom of Polycarp, as detailed by Irenzeus (chap. 14). The machinations of Crescens against Justin, the death of the latter, and the martyrdom of 'many Christians were followed by extracts from the works of Justin (chap. 18). The works of Hegesippus were reviewed (chap. 22) on whose authority the names of different sects, both Christian and Jewish, were given with a reflection on the Apocrypha, sufficient to exclude them from the canon (chap. 22).

We are then introduced to the character and writings of the excellent Dionysius of Corinth, the loss of whose works we are led to deplore, from the value of the fragments here preserved. His Christian lenience in regard to certain rigid measures that were proposed, the good effects of his epistles, his sound judgment on the writings of others, and the deep interest he everywhere manifested for the true edification of the church, entitle him to high consideration. Theophilus of Antioch and Philip of Gortyna were distinguished by their writings—the former against Hermogenes and Marcion; the latter, with great perspicuity, against Marci Tatian was a disciple of Justin, but according to Irenzeus, fell into some errors on Christian duty. His Diatessaron, a kind of harmony of the gospels, was noticed by Eusebius. The last author noticed in the fourth book was the Syrian Bardesanes, against Marcion, and it closed about A. D. 170, comprising nearly fifty years of the second century.

The fifth book opened with the persecutions under Verus. Lyons and Vienna, the two capitals of Gaul, were distinguished for martyrs.

Remarkable instances of Christian faith and fortitude were exhibited in Vittius Epagathus, Maturus, Attalus, Blandina, and others. The restoration of the lapsed through the mediation of the martyrs, a remarkable vision of Attalus, one of them, and the successful prayers of the Christian legion were among the incidents related (chaps. 4-6).

The succession of Roman bishops was given from Irenzeus, from whom also the account of miracles performed by believers, was taken.

Irenzeus was also cited on the canon (chap. 8), particularly on the Septuagint. The school founded by Pantaenus at Alexandria, who was

XXVIL

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

succeeded by Clement, together with the eulogy of the latter on his' master, gave a favorable view of the Egyptian church. The succession of Gentile bishops in the church of Jerusalem then seemed to have been a consequence of the exclusion of Jews from Aelia. Rhodo of Asia Minor wrote about that time on the divisions caused by Marcion (chap. 13). The Phrygian heresy and the schism of Blastus at Rome were among the troubles of the church noticed by the same writer. He also transmitted to us what we know of Miltiades and his works, especially on the Montanists. Extracts from Apollonius of Rome caused much zeal in refuting the pretended prophets (chap. 18). Serapion, bishop of Antioch, was cited on the same subject; Ireneeus wrote against schism, and the learned Apollonius died a martyr at Rome under Commodus. The question on the Passover being started about this time occasioned great offense. Victor presumed to excommunicate the eastern churches—a memorable prelude to the arrogance of other days (chap. 20). The fifth book ended with an account of the errors of Artemon revived by Paul of Samosata. The close of the book coincided with the reign of Severus about the beginning of the third century.

The sixth book began with the persecutions under S. Severus. It was occupied chiefly with the life and labors of Origen. These memoirs were introduced with accounts of Clement, Origen's master, Narcissus of Jerusalem, Serapron of Antioch, Heraclas mmachus, Ambrose of Alexandria, and othe . Origen's review of the Scriptures, y of Alexandria, Caesarea, and Jerusalem (chap. 27), showed the estimation in which he was held. About this time flourished

Africanus, author of a chronography, who.also wrote to Aristides on the genealogy of Christ (bk. 1, chap. 7 and bk. 6, chap. 31). Beryllus of Bostra, noted for his errors, was refuted by Origen. An instance of ecclesiastical discipline in the case of the emperor Philip, Origen's controversy with Celsus, the Arabian errorists and the Helcesaites, the Decian persecution, which occurred about the middle of the century; these events, with the sufferings of Origen, were prominent features of this book. It closed with some account of the Novatian agitations. For the removal of these, a council was held, and both Cornelius and Cyprian wrote to heal the threatened breach. Dionysius of Alexandria, in an epistle to Germanus, gave an account of his own sufferings (chap. 40) and those of the Alexandrian church in an epistle to Fabius of Antioch (chap. 41). The latter

XXVIt

INTRODUCTION

was also addressed in an epistle from Cornelius (chap. 43). An extract from Dionysius related the death of the aged Serapion, and the same Dionysius addressed Novatus in an epistle, urging peace and reconciliation. His different works were enumerated in the last chapter of the book, which embraced about half of the third century.

The seventh book tetas the extracts from Dion sius a the persecution under Decius. nat til nion with en and Cyprian wrote to him. About the same time arose the erroneous doctrine of Sabellius, and the Novatian schism reached its height (chap. 8).

Besides these points, Dionysius wrote on others of interest to the church, detailed the persecutions under Valerian and his own sufferings

(chap. 9) at that time, made his defense against the insinuations of Germanus on that occasion (bk. 6, chap. 40 and bk. 7, chap. 11), and gave many names of sufferers for the faith in Egypt.

The persecution was not as violent in Palestine but yet not without its victims (chap. 12) at Caesarea. Paneas (Caesarea Philippi) acquired celebrity for two remarkable traditions (chaps. 17-18). The see of Jerusalem was held in great veneration in these times. faster, he misery and sufferings of Alexandria during the plague were graphically described by Dionysius, who also related the schism caused by Nepos in Egypt and took part in the controversy on the Book of Revelation (chap. 20) in which he displayed much critical acumen. He died after an episcopate of seventeen years.

Paul of Samosata, notorious about that time for his errors and arrogance, was refuted by Malchion and deposed in a council (chaps. 29-30).

The heresy of Manes now appeared in the church (chap. 31), a sad mixture of oriental philosophy and perverted truth. of Peter, bishop of Alexandria (chap. 32).

The eighth book related the greatest and last of the memorable persecutions during the first centuries of the church. Churches were demolished.

Martyrs in Egypt, Syria, and Phrygia attested the faith.

XX1X

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Nicomedia was distinguished for violence to the Christians.

Maxentius and Maximian were the great enemies (chap. 14). Violence reigned the whole time of the persecution, even among the persecutors themselves (chap. 15). To the eighth book was oa the celebrated Book of Martyrs (pp. 305-330).

The ninth book recorded the revoking of decrees against the Christians, as also various public acts in their favor. It also related the calamities assailing the empire and the deaths of Maximian, Maxentius, and Maximus.

The tenth book wound up the history with a view of the pleasing reverse of events, the oration of Eusebius commemorative of the happy change, and copies of public documents confirming privileges granted to Christians.

C.F. CRUSE

March 1, 1850 XXX

Annotations

ON THE LIFE AND WRITINGS OF EUSEBIUS PAMPHILUS

By Valesius Translated! by the Rev. S. E. Parker Author of the articles "Prosody,' "Quantity," and "Versification," in Dr. Rees' cyclopedia.

ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY of Socrates," a book relative to the life of Eusebius was written by Acacius, the scholar of that prelate and his successor in the see of Caesarea. This book, however, through that negligence in antiquity to which the loss of many others is to be ascribed, is not now extant; but from the testimonies of the several writers who have mentioned Eusebius, no exertions of ours shall be wanting to supply the defect.

One proof of this is, that by the ancients, particularly by Basilius and Theodoret, he was frequently termed a Palestinian. It is not impossible, indeed, that he might have received that name from his being the bishop of Caesarea, yet probability is in favor of his having derived it from his country. In short, he himself affirmed,? that he was educated, and when a youth, lived in Palestine, and that there he first saw

Constantine when journeying through Palestine in the retinue of Diocletian Augustus. Eusebius, too, after repeating * the contents of a law written in favor of the Christians by Constantine to the Palestinians, observed, "This letter of the Emperor's is the first sent to us."

Eusebius, therefore, since Dionysius died in the twelfth year of the reign of Gallienus, must have been born before, if he lived within the time of that prelate. The same inference, also, follows from his stating® that Paul of Samosata had revived the heresy of Artemon in his" age. And in his history of the occurrences during the reign of Gallienus, before he began the narrative of the error and condemnation of Paul of Samosata,

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

he observed, "But now, after the history of these things, we will transmit to posterity an account of our own age." either do we know by what authorities, Nicephorus Callistus was warranted in affirming that his mother was the sister of Pamphilus the martyr. Eusebius of Caesarea, in Arius's letter,® was termed brother to Eusebius of Nicomedia. Though he possibly might, on account of his friendship, have received this appellation, yet it is more probable that he was nearly related to the Nicomedian bishop, especially since Eusebius of Caesarea only, though many others there are mentioned, was termed by Arius, brother to that prelate. Besides, the Nicomeci: ss aaa lg ea eae nor was it then the usage that foreigners and persons unknown should be promoted to the government of churches.

Neither is it known what teachers he had in secular learning; but in sacred literature, he had for his preceptor Dorotheus the eunuch, presbyter of the Antioch church, of whom he makes honorable mention in his seventh book.? Notwithstanding, Eusebius there said only that he had heard Dorotheus expounding the Holy Scriptures with propriety in the Antioch church. We are not inclined to object to anyone hence inferring, with Trithemius, that Eusebius was Dorotheus's disciple. Theotecnus being at that time dead, the bishopric of the church of Caesarea was administered by Agapius, a person of eminent piety and great liberality to the poor. By him Eusebius was admitted into the clerical office, and with o} "~Pamphilus, a presbyter of distinction at that time in the Caesarean

=X church, he entered into the firmest friendship.Pamphilus was, as Photius = "related, a Phoenician, born at Berytus, a scholar of Pierius, and a presos. byter of the Alexandrian church. Since he was animated with the most

= singular attachment to sacred literature and with the utmost zeal collected all the books, especially Origen's, of the ecclesiastic writers, Pamphilus founded a very celebrated school and library at Caesarea, of which school

. Eusebius seems to have been the first master. Indeed, it was affirmed! by n 4) Eusebius that Apphianus, who suffered martyrdom in the third year of = 5 the persecution, had been instructed by him in the sacred Scriptures in — @.the city of Caesarea. From that time, Eusebius' intimacy with Pamphilus

- ¥ was so great and his attention to him as his inseparable companion till his a ey death such, that from this attachment heacquited shename ofall pee =) Neither did that attachment terminate with the death of the latter but sur- ~ vived with the former, who ever mentioned his deceased friend in the XXXI1

ANNOTATIONS

most respectful and affectionate manner. This, indeed, was exemplified by the three books eulogized by St. Jerome and written by Eusebius concerning the life of Pamphilus and by many passages in his Ecclesiastical

History and in his account of the martyrs of Palestine.

In his second book, also, written against Sabellius by Eusebius after the Nicene Council, he frequently commended Pamphilus, though he suppressed his name. In the commencement of that discourse, Eusebius observed, "I think that my ears are as yet affected by the memory of that blessed man; for I seem to be yet hearing him utter that devout word or it was the remembrance of the only begotten to the glory of the unborn Father. Now we have heard the apostle commanding that presbyters ought to be honored with a double honor, those especially who have labored in the word and doctrine." And in that book, he thus again spoke of his friend: "With these things from the memory of that blessed man, I am not elated, but wish I could so speak, as if, together with you, I were always hearing from him. And the words now cited may be pleasing to him, for it is the glory of good servants to speak truth concerning the Lord, and it is the honor of those fathers, who have taught well, if their doctrines be repeated."!!

Some, it is true, "may insinuate, that these were phrases, the creatures of his lips, and no proof of the feelings of his heart. I remember, however, in what a satisfactory manner, I have heard with you, his solemn asseveration, that there was not one thing on his tongue and another in his heart."

Shortly after, he said, "But now on account of the memory and honor of this our father, so good, so laborious, and so vigilant for the church, let these facts be briefly stated by us. For we have not mentioned yet his family, his education or learning, nor narrated the other incidents of his life, and its leading or principal object." 4

These passages in Eusebius were pointed out to us by the most learned Franciscus Ogerius. Hence, it may be satisfactorily inferred that it was not any family alliance but the bond of amity that connected

Eusebius with Pamphilus. Eusebius, though he mentioned Pamphilus so frequently and boasted so highly of his friendship, yet never spoke of him as a relative. The testimony of Eusebius alone is sufficient to decide that Pamphilus, though his friend, was not his kinsman. In the close of his seventh book of Ecclesiastic History where he mentioned Agapius, bishop of Caesarea, he said, "In his time, we became acquainted with Pamphilus, a most eloquent man, and in his life and practices truly a philosopher, B

XXX111

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

and in the same church, ennobled with the honor of the presbytery."

Since Eusebius attested that Pamphilus was then first known to him, it is sufficiently evident that family alliance was not the tie that connected them.

In these times occurred that most severe persecution of the Christians, which was begun by Diocletian and by his successors continued unto the tenth year. During this persecution, Eusebius, at that time a presbyter of the church of Caesarea, abode almost constantly in that city, and by continual exhortations, instructed many persons in order to martyrdom.

Among these was Apphianus, a noble youth whose illustrious fortitude in martyrdom was related in Eusebius' book concerning the martyrs of Palestine. In the same year, Pamphilus was cast into prison where he spent two whole years in bonds. During this time, Eusebius by no means deserted his friend and companion but visited him continually and in the prison wrote, together with him, five books in defense of Origen; but the sixth and last book of that work, he finished after the death of Pamphilus.

That whole work by Eusebius and Pamphilus was dedicated to Christian confessors!> living in the mines of Palestine.

In the time of this persecution, on account, probably, of some urgent affairs of the church, Eusebius went to Tyre. During his residence there, he witnessed! the glorious martyrdom of five Egyptian Christians; and afterwards, on his arrival in Egypt and Thebais, the persecution then prevailing there, he!" beheld the admirable constancy of many martyrs of both sexes. Some have insinuated that Eusebius, to exempt himself in this persecution from the troubles of a prison, sacrificed to idols and that this was objected against him, as will be hereafter related, by the Egyptian bishops and confessors in the synod at Tyre. But we believe this is false, and that it was a lie forged by the enemies of Eusebius.For had a crime so great been really committed by him, how could he have been afterwards appointed bishop of Caesarea? How is it likely that he should, in this case, have been invited by the Antiochians to undertake the episcopate of their city? And yet Cardinal Baronius seized on that as certain and undoubted, which was objected against Eusebius by his enemies for contentious purposes but was never confirmed by the testimony of anyone. At the same time, a book was written by Eusebius against Hierocles. Hierocles of Nicomedia, about the beginning of the persecution when the Christian churches were everywhere harassed, in the city of Nicomedia, published, as an insult to a religion then assailed by all its enemies, two!8 books against the Christian faith. In these books he asserted that Apollonius

XXXIV

ANNOTATIONS

Tyaneus performed more and greater things!? than Christ. Eusebius answered these impious assertions in a short book, as if he regarded the man and his cause of little consequence.

Agapius, bishop of Caesarea during this interval, being dead, the persecution subsiding and peace being restored to the church, by common consent Others represente the synod of Ancyra at which he was present to be the successor of Agapius. This was affirmed by Baronius in his Annals" and Blondellus.2!

The latter wrote that Eusebius undertook the administration of the church of Caesarea after the death of Agricola about the year 315. But these subscriptions of the bishops extant only in the Latin collections of the canons seem in our judgment to be entitled to little credit. They occur neither in the Greek copies nor in the Latin versions of Dionysius Exiguus or Berides. Eusebius," enumerating the bishops of the principal dioceses where the persecution began and raged, ended with the mention of Agapius bishop of Caesarea, who, he observed, labored much during that persecution for the good of his own church. The necessary inference, therefore, is that Agapius must have been bishop until the end of the persecution.

But Eusebius was elevated to the episcopal function immediately after that persecution. After peace was restored to the church, Eusebius" and other prelates were invited by Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, about which period Eusebius wrote those celebrated books concerning Evangelic Demonstration and Preparation. And these books were certainly written before the Nicene Synod, since they are expressly mentioned in his Ecclesiastical History, which was written, as proved in our annotations, before that council.

Meanwhile, Licinius, who managed the government in the eastern parts, excited by s rage, began to persecute the Christians, especially the prelates whom he suspected of showing more favor and of offering up more prayers for Constantine than for himself. Constantine, however, having defeated him in two battles by land and sea, compelled him to surrender and restored peace to the Christians of the eastern countries.

However, a far more grievous disturbance arose at that time among the Christians themselves. Since Arius, a presbyter of the city of Alexandria, would in the church publicly advance some new and impious

XXXV

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

tenet relative to the Son of God and persisted despite repeated admonition by Alexander, the bishop, Arius and his associates in this heresy were at length expelled. Highly resenting this, Arius sent letters with a sketch of his own faith to all the bishops of the neighboring cities in which he complained that since he asserted the same doctrines that the rest of the Eastern prelates maintained, he had been unjustly deposed by Alexander.

Many bishops imposed on by these artifices and powerfully excited by Eusebius of Nicomedia, who openly favored the Arian party, wrote letters

GS ", in defense of Arius to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, entreating him to restore Arius to his former rank in the church. Our Eusebius was one of their number, whose letter written to Alexander is extant in the arts of the seventh ecumenical synod, which we have inserted among the WRITIN EXTANT testimonies"4 of the ancients. The example of Eusebius of Caesarea was soon followed by Theodotius and Paulinus, the one bishop of Laodicea, aH IS ~~ the other of Tyre, who interceded with Alexander for Arius's restoration.

Since Arius boasted on every occasion and by the authority of such eminent men drew many into the participation of his heresy, Alexander was compelled to write to the other Eastern bishops that the justice of the expulsion of Arius and his associates might be understood. Two letters of Alexander's are yet extant: the one to Alexander, bishop of Constantinople, in which the former complains of three Syrian bishops, who, agreeing with Arius, had more than ever inflamed that contest which they ought rather to have suppressed. These three, as may be learned from Arius's letter to Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, are Eusebius,

Theodotius, and Paulinus. The other letter of Alexander's, written to all the bishops throughout the world, Socrates recorded in his first book.

To these letters of Alexander's, almost all the Eastern bishops subscribed, among whom the most eminent were Philogonius, bishop of Antioch,

Eustathius of Berea, and Macarius of Jerusalem.

The bishops who favored the Arian party, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, imagining themselves to be severely treated in Alexander's letters, devoted themselves with much greater acrimony to the defense of Arius. Our Eusebius of Caesarea, together with Patrophilus, Paulinus, and other Syrian bishops, merely voted that liberty to Arius might be granted of holding, as a presbyter, assemblies in the church, subject notwithstanding to Alexander the bishop and of imploring for reconciliation and church fellowship. The bishops disagreeing thus among themselves, some favoring the party of Alexander and others that of Arius, the contest

XXXVI

ANNOTATIONS

became singularly aggravated. To remedy this, Constantine, from all parts of the Roman world, summoned to Nicea, a city of Bythinia, a general synod of bishops such as no age before had seen. In this greatest and most celebrated council, our Eusebius was not one of either party. He both had the first seat on the right hand and in the name of the whole synod addressed the emperor Constantine, who sat on a golden chair between the two rows of the opposite parties. This is affirmed by Eusebius himself in his Life*® of Constantine and by Sozomen2' in his Ecclesiastic History.

Afterward, when there was a considerable contest among the bishops relative to a creed or form of faith, our Eusebius proposed a formula, at once simple and orthodox, which received the general commendation both of the bishops and of the emperor himself. However, something seemed to be wanting in the creed to confute the impiety of the new opinion, so the fathers of the Nicene Council determined that these words, "very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father; should be added. They also annexed anathemas against those who should assert that the Son of God was made of things not existing and that there was a time when he did not exist. At first, indeed, our Eusebius refused to admit the term consubstantial,* but when the import of that word was explained to him by the other bishops, he consented, and as he himself related in his letter?' to his diocese at Caesarea, subscribed to the creed.

Some affirmed that it was the necessity of circumstances or the fear of the emperor and not the conviction of his own mind that compelled Eusebius

Pox

v to subscribe to the Nicene Council. Of some present at the synod, this might be believed, but this we cannot think of Eusebius, bishop of ft) "

{1} ) Caesarea. After the Nicene Council, too, Eusebius always condemned"

J those who asserted that the Son of God was made of things not existing.

—- 2f ft Athanasius likewise affirmed the same concerning him, who though he ao rms frequently mentioned that Eusebius subscribed to the Nicene Council,~¢,

\ nowhere intimated that he did that in dissimulation. Had Eusebius sub- ,

OS fp scribed to that council, not according to his own mind but fraudulently and in pretense, why did he afterward send the letter we have mentioned © _ to his diocese at Caesarea and therein ingenuously profess that he had Y embraced that faith which had been published in the Nicene Council?

After that council, the Arians, through fear of the emperor, were quiet for a short time. But by artfully ingratiating themselves into the favor of the prince, they resumed boldness and began to persecute the catholic prelates>! by every method and device. Their firm attack fell on XXXVII

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Eustathius, bishop of the city of Antioch, eminent both for the glory of his confession and for the rank he sustained among the advocates of the Nicene faith. Eustathius was, therefore, accused before the emperor of maintaining the Sabellian impiety and of slandering Helena Augusta, the emperor's mother. A numerous assembly of bishops was convened in the city of Antioch, in which Eusebius of Nicomedia, the chief and ringleader of the whole faction, presided. In addition to the accusation advanced at this assembly by Cyrus, bishop of the Bereans against Eustathius of maintaining the impious doctrine of Sabellius, another** was devised against him of incontinency, and he was therefore expelled from his diocese. On this account, an impetuous tumult arose at Antioch. The people divided into two factions, the one requesting that the episcopacy of the Antiochian church might be conferred on Eusebius of Caesarea, the other, that Eustathius, their bishop, might be restored. They would have resorted to measures of violence, had not the fear and authority of the emperor and judges prevented it. The sedition being at length terminated and Eustathius banished, our Eusebius, though entreated both by the people and the bishops who were present to undertake administrating the church at Antioch, nevertheless refused. And when the bishops by letters written to Constantine had acquainted him with their own vote and with the suffrages of the people, Eusebius wrote his letters also to that prince, and Eusebius' resolution is highly commended in the emperor's answer.

Eustathius, having been in this manner deposed, which occurred in the year 330 (as remarked in our annotations°9), the Arians turned the violence of their fury on Athanasius. In the prince's presence, they complained first of his ordination; secondly, that he had exacted* the impost of a linen garment from the provincials; thirdly, that he had broken a sacred cup; and lastly, that he had murdered Arsenius, a bishop.

Constantine, wearied with these vexatious litigations, appointed a council in the city of Tyre, and directed Athanasius, the bishop, to proceed there to make his defense. In that synod, Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, whom Constantine had desired should be present, sat among others as judge. Potamo, bishop of Heracleopolis, who had come with Athanasius the bishop and some Egyptian prelates, seeing him sitting in the council, was said to have addressed him in these words: "Is it fit,

Eusebius, that you should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judged by you? Who can endure this? Were you not in custody with me during the time of the persecution? And I truly, in defense of the XXXVII1

ANNOTATIONS

truth, lost an eye; but you are injured in no part of your body, neither did you undergo martyrdom but are alive and whole. In what manner did you escape out of prison, unless you promised to our persecutors that you would commit the detestable* thing? And perhaps you have done it" This was related by Epiphanius in the heresy of the Meletians.

Hence, it appears that they are mistaken who affirm that Eusebius had sacrificed to idols and that he had been convicted of the fact in the Tyrian synod. Potamo did not attest that Eusebius had sacrificed to idols but only that he was dismissed out of prison safe and whole, a circumstance that favored the malevolent surmise of Potamo. It was, however, evidently possible that Eusebius might have been dismissed from confinement in a manner very different from that of Potamo's insinuation.

From the words of Epiphanius, it seems to be inferred that Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, presided at this synod, for he added that Eusebius being previously affected in hearing the accusation against him by Potamo, dismissed the council. Yet by other writers we are informed that not Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, but Eusebius of Nicomedia presided at the Tyrian synod.

After that council, all the bishops who had assembled at Tyre repaired to Jerusalem, by the emperor's orders, to celebrate the consecration of the great church, which Constantine, in honor of Christ, had erected in that place. There our Eusebius graced the solemnity by the several sermons he delivered. And when the emperor, by very strict letters, had summoned the bishops to his own court that in his presence they might give an account of their fraudulent and litigious conduct towards Athanasius, our

Eusebius, with five others, went to Constantinople and furnished that prince with a development of the whole transaction. Here also, in the palace, he delivered his tricennalian oration, which the emperor heard with the utmost joy, not so much on account of any praises to himself, as on account of the praises of God celebrated by Eusebius throughout the whole of that oration. This oration was the second delivered by Eusebius in that palace.*" He had before made an oration there concerning the sepulcher of our Lord, which the emperor heard standing, nor could he, though repeatedly entreated by Eusebius, be persuaded to sit in the chair placed for him,** alleging that it was fit that discourses concerning God should be heard standing.

XXXIX

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

circumstances. He both received many letters from him, as may be seen in the books already mentioned, and was not infrequently sent for to the palace where he was entertained at table and honored with familiar conversation. Constantine, moreover, related to our Eusebius the vision of the cross seen by him when on his expedition against Maxentius and showed him, as Eusebius informed"? us, the labarum" that he had ordered to be made to represent the likeness of that cross. Constantine also committed to Eusebius, since he knew him to be most skillful in biblical knowledge, the care and superintendency of transcribing copies*! of the Scriptures, which he wanted for the accommodation of the churches he had built at Constantinople. Lastly, the book concerning the feast of Easter, dedicated

(uJ to him by our Eusebius, was a present to Constantine so acceptable that he ordered its immediate translation into Latin. By letter he entreated

Eusebius to. communicate works of this nature with which he was [__-engaged as soon as possible to those concerned in the study of sacred

| _uliterature.

VE.

About the same time, Eusebius dedicated a small book to Emperor (is Constantine in which he described the Jerusalem church and the gifts

\ = that had been consecrated there. This book, together with his tricennalian oration that he had placed at the close of his Life of Constantine, is not NP now extant. At the same time, Eusebius wrote five books against Marcellus, wie of which the three last, De Ecclesiastica Theologia, he dedicated to i €) Flaccillus, bishop of Antioch. Flaccillus entered on that bishopric a little

' a oad Nga os VP, en a before the synod of Tyre which was convened in the consulate of Constantius and Albinus, A. D. 335. It is certain that Eusebius, in his first book® wrote in express words that Marcellus had been deservedly condemned by the church. Now Marcellus was first condemned in the synod held at Constantinople by those very bishops that had consecrated x -—— Constantine's church at Jerusalem in the year 335 or, according to Baronius,

Gee = 336. Socrates, indeed, acknowledged only three books written by Eusebius A against Marcellus, namely, those entitled, De Ecclesiastica Theologia; but the whole work by Eusebius against Marcellus comprised five books. The last books written by Eusebius seem to be the four on the life of Constantine, for they were written after the death of that emperor, whom

Eusebius did not long survive, since he died about the beginning of the reign of Constantius Augustus, a little before the death of Constantine

Junior, which happened, according to the testimony of Socrates' second" book, when Acindynus and Proculus were consuls, A.D. 340. xl

ANNOTATIONS

We cannot admit what Scaliger® has affirmed, that Eusebius' books against Porphyry were written under Constantius, the son of Constantine the Great, especially since this was not confirmed by the testimony of any ancient writer. Besides, in what was asserted immediately after by Scaliger, that Eusebius wrote his three® last books of the Evangelic Demonstration against Porphyry, there is an evident error. St. Jerome said, indeed, that Eusebius in three volumes (that is, in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth, ) answered Porphyry, who in the twelfth and thirteenth of those books which he published against the Christians, had attempted to confute the book of the prophet Daniel. St. Jerome," however, did not mean, as Scaliger thought, Eusebius books on Evangelic Demonstration but the books he wrote against Porphyry, entitled, according to Photius's

Bibliotheca, nepi €h€yxXov Kai anoroytac, Refutation and Defense. We are also persuaded that Eusebius wrote these books after his Ecclesiastical

History because Eusebius, though on other occasions he usually referred to his own works, does not in the sixth book* of his Ecclesiastical History, where he quoted a notorious passage from Porphyry," make any mention of the books he wrote against him.

We avail ourselves of the present opportunity to make some remarks relative to Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History, the chief subject of our present labor and exertions. Much, indeed, had been written by our Eusebius, both against Jews and the heathens, to the edification of the orthodox and general church and in confirmation of the verity of the Christian faith; nevertheless, among all his books, his Ecclesiastical History deservedly stands preeminent. Before Eusebius, many had written in defense of Christianity and had, by the most satisfactory arguments, refuted the Jews on the one hand and the heathen on the other, but not one before Eusebius had delivered to posterity a history of ecclesiastic affairs.

Because Eusebius not only was the first to show this example, but transmitted to us what he undertook in a state so complete and perfect, he is entitled to the greater commendation. Though many, it is true, induced by his example, have since his time furnished accounts of ecclesiastic affairs, yet they have not only uniformly commenced their histories from the times of Eusebius but have left him to be the undisputed voucher of the period of which he yet remains the exclusive historian, and consequently he only is entitled to the epithet of the father of ecclesiastic history.

By what preliminary circumstances Eusebius was led to this his chef d'oeuvre, it is not difficult to conjecture. Having in his Chronological xli

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

Canons accurately stated the time of the advent and passion of Jesus:

Christ, the names of the several bishops who had presided in the four principal churches and of the eminent characters therein and having also detailed an account of the successive heresies and persecutions, he was led by insensible degrees to write a history specially on ecclesiastic affairs, to furnish a full development of what had been but briefly sketched in his

Chronological Canons. This, indeed, was expressly confirmed by Eusebius in his preface to that work where he also implored the forbearance of the candid reader on account of his work being less circumstantial, because of his traveling in a path before untrod and his being precluded from the intimations on that subject of any previous writer. In the view of some this may appear not so much an apology as an indirect device for acquiring praise.

Though it is evident from Eusebius' own testimony that he wrote his Ecclesiastical History after his Chronological Canons, it is remarkable that the twentieth year*! of Constantine was a limit common to both those works. Nor is it less singular, that, though the Nicene Council was held in that year," yet no mention was made of it in either work. But in his chronicle, in the fifteenth year of Constantine, we read that "Alexander is ordained the nineteenth bishop of the Alexandrian church, by whom

Arius the presbyter being expelled, joins many to his own impiety. A synod, therefore, of three hundred and eighteen bishops, is convened at Nicea, a city of Bithynia, who by their agreement on the term Ouo0voLOG

(consubstantial, or co-essential), suppressed all the devices of the heretics."

It is sufficiently evident that these words were not written by Eusebius but by St. Jerome, who in Eusebius' chronicle inserted many passages of his own. Not to mention that this reference to the Nicene Council was inserted in a place with which it had no proper connection, who could believe that Eusebius would thus write concerning Arius or should have inserted the term O000010¢ in his own chronicle (which word, as we shall hereafter state, was not satisfactory to him)? Was it likely that Eusebius should state in the chronicle that three hundred and eighteen bishops were present at the Nicene synod and in his third*? book on the Life of Constantine, say expressly that something more than two hundred and fifty sat in that council? We doubt not, however, that the Ecclesiastical

History was not completely finished by Eusebius until some years after the council at Nicea. As Dionysius of Halicarnassus, in his comparison of xlii

ANNOTATIONS

Herodotus and Thucydides, had long since intimated to the writers of histories the propriety of terminating their narratives at the consummation of some illustrious event, Eusebius had, it is likely, resolved to close his history with that peace which shone after Diocletian's persecution like a light from heaven upon the church. On this account, probably, he avoided mentioning the Nicene synod lest he should be compelled to commence a narrative of renewed litigation and of bishops one against another. Now what event more illustrious could have been desired by Eusebius than that repose, which after a most bloodthirsty persecution, had been restored to the Christians by Constantine when the persecutors and Licinius being everywhere extinct, not a fear of past afflictions could exist? This epoch, therefore, rather than that of the Nicene Council, afforded the most eligible limit to his Ecclesiastical History. In that synod, the contentions seemed not so much appeased as renewed and that not through any fault of the synod itself but by the pertinacity of those who refused to acquiesce in the salutary decrees of that venerable assembly.

Having said this much relative to the life and writings of Eusebius, it remains to make some remarks in reference to the soundness of his religious faith and sentiments. Let not the reader, however, here expect from us a defense nor even any opinion of our own but rather the judgment of the church and of the ancient fathers concerning him. Wherefore, certain points shall be here premised as preliminary propositions, relying on which, we may arrive at the greater certainty relative to the faith of Eusebius. As the opinions of the ancients concerning Eusebius were various, since some termed him a catholic, others a heretic, others a SiyAwoooc,~™ a person of a double tongue or wavering faith, it is incumbent on us to inquire to which opinion we should chiefly assent. Of the law it is an invariable rule to adopt in doubtful cases the more lenient opinion as the safer alternative. Besides, since all the Westerns, St. Jerome excepted, entertained honorable sentiments relative to Eusebius, and since the Gallican church enrolled>' him in the catalogue of saints, it is questionless preferable to assent to the judgment of our fathers than to that of the Eastern schismatics. In short, whose authority ought to be more decisive in this matter than that of the bishops of Rome? But Galesius, in his work on the Two Natures, recounted our Eusebius among the catholic writers and quoted two authorities out of his books. Pope

Pelagius,© too, termed him the most honorable among historians and pronounced him to be free from every taint of heresy, notwithstanding he xliti

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

had highly eulogized heretical Origen. Some, however, may say that since the Easterns were better acquainted with Eusebius, a man of their own language, a preference should be given, in this case, to their judgment.

Even among these, Eusebius does not want those. For example, Socrates" and Gelasius Cyzicenus,"8 entertained a favorable opinion concerning him.

If the judgment of be opposed to any inclination in his favor, our answer is read opponents who had lately assembled in the imperial city produced evidence out of Eusebius' letter to Constantia and laid the greatest stress thereon, the fathers of the seventh svnod, to invalidate the authority of that evidence, exclaimed that Eusebius was an Arian. But this was done merely casually from the impulse of the occasion and hatred of the letter, not advisedly or from a previous investigation of the charge. They produced some passages from Eusebius, it is true, to insinuate that he was

Parti to the Arian hypothesis; but they avoided all discrimination wy) between what Eusebius wrote prior to the Nicene Council and what he wrote afterwards, which unquestionably ought to have been done as essential to a just decision relative to Eusebius' faith. In short, nothing written by Eusebius before that synod was fairly chargeable in this respect

J) "7 against him. Eusebius' letter to Alexander containing his intercession ce with that prelate for Arius was, of course, written before that council. The ae ee affirmation, therefore, of the fathers of the seventh synod, even though it r) had the semblance of the highest authority, seemed rather to have the i ews "Z. character of temerity and premature judgment than to be the verdict of a ae synod derived from a judicial investigation of the cause. The Greeks

al — mA Tee

ae A 7 of) eee eng oe Let his books De Ecclesiastica Theologia bev* 4 4 ve saiveed Sat ei wrote against Marcellus long after the Nicene Council;

C and we shall find what we have affirmed, that he condemned those who { asserted that the Son of God was made of things not existing and that 7} [™ — | en gen oi ~~ a eT ere Was a time when he existed not.

ANNOTATIONS

words: "In this, truly, he was unfortunate: that he might clear himself, however, of the imputation, he ever afterwards opposed the Arians, particularly since their denial of the pre-existence of the Son of God applied equally to his conception or incarnation." With this testimony, too, Eusebius was favored by Athanasius, notwithstanding the personal differences between them. But St. Jerome, who had no"cause of enmity against Eusebius, who had profited so liberally by his writings and had translated his Chronological Canon and his book De locis hebraicis into Latin, nonetheless branded Eusebius with a misrepresentation which even his most malignant enemies never fastened on him. The reason of Ho Wy oie, FAU this we cannot conjecture except that St. Jerome, in consequence of his enmity to Origen, persisted in an unqualified persecution of all who ie i maintained his opinions, particularly Eusebius.

On the other hand, we do not conceal the fact that Eusebius, though he cannot be deservedly esteemed a ringleader of the Arian faction, yet "5 after the Nicene Council, was perpetually conversant with the principals Pa of that party and, together with them, opposed the catholic bishops, such as Eustathius and Athanasius, the most strenuous advocates for the adoption of the term ovoovotoc. Though Eusebius always asserted the , ta a eternity of the Son of God against the Arians, yet in his disapproval of that word, he seems censurable. It is certain that he never made use of that —n term, either in his books against Marcellus or in his orations against Sabellius. In his second book against Sabellius, he expressly declared that since that word is not in the Scriptures, it was not satisfactory to him. On this occasion, he spoke to the following effect: "As not inquiring into truths which admit of investigation, is indolence, so prying into others, where the scrutiny is inexpedient, is audacity. Into what truths ought we then to search? Those which we find recorded in the Scriptures. But what we do not find recorded there, let us not search after. For had the knowledge of them been incumbent on us, the Holy Spirit would doubtless have placed them there." Shortly after, he said, "Let us not hazard ourselves in such a risk, but speak safely; and let not any thing that is written be blotted out." And in the end of his oration, he thus expressed himself: "Speak what is written, and the strife will be abandoned." In these passages,

Eusebius, no doubt, alluded to the word Owoove10¢.

Finally, we now advert to the testimonies of the ancients concerning Eusebius. Here one thing is to be observed, namely, however various the opinions of men have been relative to the accuracy of the religious xly

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

sentiments of Eusebius, all, however, have unanimously esteemed him as a person of the most profound learning. To this we have to mention one solitary exception, Joseph Scaliger, who within the memory of our fathers, impelled by the current of temerity and relish for vituperation, endeavored to filch from Eusebius those literary honors which even his adversaries never dared to impugn. We have inserted among Scaliger's words®™ the testimonies of the ancients, not as any proof of our value of his judgment on this point but for the accommodation of those desirous of knowing them, and with the design that his unwarrantable detraction might meet with the exposure it deserved. Having resolved to write a commentary on the Chronological Canon of Eusebius, he did not hesitate to arraign St. Jerome himself because he spoke of Eusebius as a most learned character. On Scaliger's opinion, we had at first determined to bestow a more ample refutation; but this we shall defer until more leisure on the one hand or a more urgent claim on the part of the reader on the other shall again call our attention to the subject.

Book One

ie ae ~~ acter

Subject of the present work hat individuals in the most noted places eminently governed and presided over the church, and what men also in their respective generations, whether with or without their writings, proclaimed the divine word. I will describe the character, times, and number of those who, stimulated by the desire of innovation, and advancing to the greatest errors, announced themselves leaders in the propagation of false opinions, like grievous wolves, unmercifully assaulting the flock of Christ. ow often, by what means, and in what times the word of God has encountered the hostility of the nations; what eminent persons persevered in contending for it through those periods of blood and torture, beside the martyrdoms which have been endured in our own times; above all, to show the gracious and benign interposition of our Savior.

These being proposed as the subjects of 3) Acknowledging that it is beyond my power to present the work perfect and beyond criticism, I freely confess it will crave indulgence, especially since, as the first of those who have entered upon the subject, we are attempting a trackless and unbeaten path. Looking with prayer to God as our guide, we trust that we shall have the power of Christ as our aid, though we are totally unable to find even the bare vestiges of those who may have traveled the way before us; unless, perhaps, what is only presented in the slight intimations, which some in different ways have transmitted to us in certain partial narratives of the times in which they lived; who, raising their voices before us, like torches at a distance, and as looking down from some commanding height, call out and exhort us where we should walk and whither direct our course with certainty and safety.

Whatever, therefore, we deem likely to be advantageous to the proposed subject, we shall endeavor to reduce to a compact body by historical

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

narration. (4) For this purpose we have collected the materials that have' been scattered by our predecessors and culled, as from some intellectual meadows, the appropriate extracts from ancient authors. In the execution of this work, we shall be happy to rescue from oblivion the successions, if not of all, at least of the most noted apostles of our Lord in those churches which even at this day are accounted the most eminent, a labor which has appeared to me necessary in the highest degree, as I have not yet been able to find that any of the ecclesiastical writers have directed their efforts to present anything complete in this department of writing. (5) But as on the one hand I deem it highly necessary, so also I believe it will appear no less useful to those who are zealous admirers of historical research. (6)

Of these matters, indeed, I have already furnished an epitome in my chronological tables, but in the present work I have undertaken a more full narrative.

(7) As I said above, I shall begin my treatise with that dispensation and that doctrine of the divinity which in sublimeness and excellence surpasses all human invention, namely, that of our Savior Christ. (8) And indeed, whoever would give a detail of ecclesiastical history to posterity, is necessarily obliged to go back to the very origin of the dispensation of Christ, as it is from him, indeed, that we derive our very epithet, a dispensation more divine than many are disposed to think.

Summary view of the preexistence and divinity of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ

(1) THE MODE OF EXISTENCE IN Curist is twofold, the one resembling the head of the body, indicating his divinity; the other compared to the feet, by which he, for the sake of our salvation, assumed that nature which is subject to the same infirmities with ourselves. Hence, our account of the subsequent matter may be rendered complete and perfect by commencing with the principal and most important points in his history. By this method at the same time, the antiquity and the divine dignity of the Christian name will be exhibited to those who suppose it a recent and foreign production that sprung into existence but yesterday and was never before known.

(2) No language, then, is sufficient to express the origin, the dignity, even the substance and nature of Christ. Even the divine Spirit in the ly t 1e, by eer he was begotten. (3) Who but the Father has aSroneiy understood that Light which existed before the world was—that intellectual and substantial Wisdom, that living Word which in the beginning was with the Father before all creation and any production visible or invisible, the first and only Offspring of God, the Prince and Leader of the spiritual and immortal host of heaven, the Angel of the mighty council, the Agent to execute the Father's secret will, the Maker of all thi ather, the second cause of the universe next to the Father, nd the Lord and God and King of all created things, who has received power and dominion with divinity itself, and power and honor from the Father. All this is evident from those more difficult passages in reference to his divinity:

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the word was God. ... All things were made by him, and without him nothing was made" (John 1:1, 3).

(4) This, too, we are taught by the great Moses, that most ancient of all the prophets, when under the influence of the divine Spirit, he describes the creation and arrangement of all things, he also informs us that the Creator and Maker of the universe yielded to Christ, and to none but to his divine and first begotten Word, the formation of all subordinate things and communed with him respecting the creation of man. "For," says he,

"God said, Let us make man according to our image and according to our likeness" (Gen. 1:26).

(5) This expression is confirmed by another of the prophets, who, discoursing of God in his hymns, declares, "He spake, and they were made; he commanded, and they were created" (Ps. 33:9). Where he introduces the Father and Maker as the Ruler of all, commanding with his sovereign nod but the divine Word as next to him, the very same who is proclaimed to us, as ministering to his Father's commands. (6) All who are said to have excelled in righteousness and piety, since the creation of man: Moses, that eminent servant of God and Abraham before him, the children of the latter, and as many righteous prophets as subsequently appeared contemplated with the pure eyes of the mind and both recognized and gave him the worship that was his due as the Son of God.

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

(7) The Son himself, however, by no means indifferent to the worship of the Father, is appointed to teach the knowledge of the Father to all. The Lord God, therefore, appeared as a common man to Abraham, while sitting at the oak of Mamre. And Abraham, immediately falling down, although he plainly saw a man with his eyes, nevertheless worshipped him as God and entreated him as Lord. The Son confessed, too, that he is not ignorant who he is in the words, "Lord, the judge of all the earth, wilt not thou judge righteously?" (Gen. 18:25). (8) As it were wholly unreasonable to suppose the uncreated and unchangeable substance of the Almighty God to be changed into the form of a man or to deceive the eyes of beholders with the phantom of any created substance, so also it is unreasonable to suppose that the Scriptures have falsely invented such things as these.

"God and the Lord who is judge of the whole earth, and executeth judgment" appearing in the shape of man, who else can he be called, if it be not lawful to call him the Author of the universe, than his only preexisting word? Concerning him also in the Psalms it is said, "He sent his word and healed them, and delivered them from their corruptions." (Ps.

107:20). (9) Of him, Moses obviously spoke as the second after the Father when he said, "The Lorp rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lorn." (Gen. 19:24). He also again appearing to Jacob in the form of man, the sacred Scriptures call by the name of God, saying to Jacob, "Thy name shall no more be called Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name, because thou hast prevailed with God" (Gen. 32:28). Jacob called the name of that place the vision of God, saying, "I have seen God face to face, and my soul has lived" (Gen. 32:30).

(10) To suppose these divine appearances the forms of subordinate angels and servants of God is inadmissible, since, as often as any of these appeared to men, the Scriptures do not conceal the fact in the name, expressly saying that they were called not God nor Lord but angels, as would be easy to prove by a thousand references.

(11) Joshua also, the successor of Moses, called him as the Ruler of celestial angels and archangels, of supernatural powers and as the Power and Wisdom of God, entrusted with the second rank of sovereignty and rule over all, "the captain of the Lord's host,' although he saw him only in the form and shape of man. (12) For thus it is written: "And it came to pass when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him, with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, 'Art thou for us,

or for our adversaries?' And he said, 'Nay but as captain of the Lorp's host am I now come.' And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and said unto him, "What saith my lord unto his servant?' And the captain of the Lorp's host, said unto Joshua, 'Loose thy shoe from off thy foot: for the place whereon thou standest is holy" (Josh. 5:13-15).

(13) Here then you will perceive from the words themselves that this is none other than the one who also communicated with Moses, since the Scriptures in the same words and in reference to the same one says,

"When the Lord saw that he drew near to see, the Lord called to him from the midst of the bush, saying, Moses, Moses. And he answered, Here am

I. But he said, Draw not nearer, loose thy shoes from off thy feet, for the place on which thou standest is holy ground. And he said to him, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob" (Exod. 3:4-6).

(14) That there is also a certain primeval, living, and self-existing substance, ministering to the Father and God of all unto the formation of all created objects, called the Word and the Wisdom of God, besides the proofs already advanced, we may also learn from the very words of Wisdom, speaking of herself in the clearest manner through Solomon and thus initiating us into her mysteries. "I wisdom make my habitation with prudence and knowledge, and have called to understanding. By me kings reign and princes define justice. By me the great are magnified and rulers subdue the earth" (Prov. 8:12, 15-16).

(15) To this he added the following: "The Lorp created me in the beginning of his ways, for his works; before the world he established me, before the formation of the earth, before the waters came from their fountains, before the foundation of the mountains, before all hills, he brought me forth. When he prepared the heavens, I was present with him, and when he established the fountains under the heavens, I was with him, adjusting them. I was his delight; daily I exulted before him at all times, when he rejoiced that he had completed the world" (Prov. 8:22-30). (16)

That the divine Word, therefore, preexisted and appeared, if not to all, at least to some, has been thus briefly shown.

Reasons Why the Gospel Was Not Proclaimed Sooner (17) The reason, however, why this was not also proclaimed before in ancient times to all men and all nations as it is now will appear from the following considerations: The life of men in ancient times was not in Fi

EUSEBIUS' ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY

a situation to receive the doctrine of Christ in the comprehensive fullness of its wisdom and its virtue.

(18) Immediately in the beginning after that happy state, the first man, neglecting the divine commands, fell into the present mortal and afflicted condition and exchanged his former divine enjoyment for the present earth, subject to the curse. The descendants of this one, having filled our earth and proved themselves much worse, excepting one here and another there, commenced a brutal and disorderly mode of life. (19) They had neither city nor state, no arts or sciences, even in contemplation. Laws and justice, virtue and philosophy they knew not, even in name. They wandered lawless through the desert like savage and fierce animals, destroying the intellectual faculty of man and exterminating the very seeds of reason and culture of the human mind by the excesses of determined wickedness and by a total surrender of themselves to every species of iniquity.

Hence, at one time they corrupted each other by criminal intercourse; at another, they murdered; and at others, fed upon human flesh.

Then, too, their audacity in venturing to wage war with the Deity himself and hence those battles of the giants, celebrated by all. They also attempted to wall up the earth against heaven, and by the madness of perverted minds, to prepare an attack upon the supreme God himself. (20) Upon these men, leading lives of such wickedness, the omniscient God sent inundations and conflagrations as upon a forest scattered over the earth.

He cut them down with successive famines and pestilence, with constant wars and thunderbolts as if to suppress the dreadful and obdurate disease of the soul with his more severe punishments.

(21) Then it was when the excess of malignity had nearly overwhelmed all the world like a deep fit of drunkenness overshadowing and beclouding the minds of men, that the first begotten wisdom of God, existing before all creatures, and the selfsame preexisting Word, induced by his exceeding love of man, appeared at times to his servants in visions of angels, at others, in his own person. As the salutary power of God, he was seen by one and the other of the pious in ancient times in the shape of man because it was impossible to appear in any other way. (22) And as by these pious men, the seeds of godliness had been already scattered among the mass of mankind, and the whole nation that claimed its origin from those ancient Hebrews, continued devoted to the worship of God—to these, therefore, as to a multitude still affected by former corrupt practices, he imparted through Moses, images and signs of a certain

mystical Sabbath and circumcision and instructions in other spiritual principles but did not yet grant the privilege of an immediate initiation.

(23) Their law obtained celebrity and like a fragrant odor was spread abroad among all men. By means of this law, the dispositions of men, even among most of the Gentiles, were improved by legislators and philosophers everywhere, who softened their wild and savage ferocity so as to enjoy settled peace, friendship, and mutual intercourse. Then it was when men at length throughout the whole world and in all nations had been previously prepared and fitted for the reception of the knowledge of the Father, that he himself again appeared, the master of virtue, the minister of the Father in all goodness, the divine and celestial Word of God. He appeared in a human body, in substance not differing from our own nature, at the commencement of the Roman empire. He performed and suffered such things as were to follow according to prophecy, namely, that man and God, the author of miraculous works would dwell in the world, and would be exhibited to all the nations as the teacher of that piety which the Father would approve.

In these prophecies, also, were foretold the extraordinary facts of his birth, his new doctrine, and his wonderful works, as well as the manner of his death, his resurrection from the dead, and finally his divine return to the heavens. (24) The prophet Daniel, under the influence of the divine

Spirit, foreseeing his kingdom in the end, was inspired thus to write and describe his vision, in adaptation to human capacity, in the following language: "I beheld; said he, "until the thrones were placed; and the Ancient of Days sat, and his garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head was as pure wool; his throne was a flame of fire, his wheels burning fire; a river of fire rolled before him; thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand thousands stood near him. He appointed judgment, and the books were opened." (25) And next, "I beheld," said he, "and lo! one coming with the clouds as the Son of Man, and he advanced as far as the Ancient of Days, and he was brought into his presence. And to him was given the dominion, and the glory, and the kingdom and all people, tribes, tongues shall serve him. His power is an everlasting power, which shall not pass away; and his kingdom shall not be destroyed." (Dan.

7:9-10, 13-14). (26) These passages can evidently be referred to no one but to our Savior, that God Word! which was in the beginning with God; called the Son of God by reason of his final appearance in the flesh. (27)

But having collected the prophetic declarations concerning our Savior

↑ Back to top