§2.  Catalogue of his Works .

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

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

The writings of Eusebius that are known to us, extant and non-extant, may be classified for convenience’ sake under the following heads: I. Historical. II. Apologetic. III. Polemic. IV. Dogmatic. V. Critical and Exegetical. VI. Biblical Dictionaries. VII. Orations. VIII. Epistles. IX. Spurious or doubtful works. The classification is necessarily somewhat artificial, and claims to be neither exhaustive nor exclusive.  4  In the preparation of the following Catalogue of Eusebius’ writings Stein, and especially Lightfoot, have been found most helpful.

I. Historical Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Life of Constantine (εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ μακαρίου Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ βασιλέως). For particulars in regard to this work, see the prolegomena of Dr. Richardson, on pp. 466–469 sq., of this volume.

II. Apologetic Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 Præparatio Ecclesiastica (᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ Προπαρασκευή), and  Demonstratio Ecclesiastica (᾽Εκκλησιαστικὴ ᾽Απόδειξις). These two works are no longer extant. We know of the former only from Photius’ reference to it in  Bibl . 11, of the latter from his mention of it in  Bibl . 12.

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

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

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

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

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

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

III. Polemic Works.

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

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

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

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

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

IV. Dogmatic Works.

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

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

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

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

V. Critical and Exegetical Works.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VI. Biblical Dictionaries.

 Interpretation of the Ethnological Terms in the Hebrew Scriptures. This work is no longer extant, but is known to us from Eusebius’ reference to it in the preface to his work  On the Names of Places, where he writes as follows: τῶν ἀνὰ τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐθνῶν ἐπὶ τὴν ἑλλ€δα φωνὴν μεταβαλὼν τὰς ἐν τῇ θεί& 139· γραφῇ κειμένας ἑβραίοις ὀνόμασι προσρήσεις. Jerome, in the preface to his Latin version of the same work, also refers to it in the following words: “…diversarum vocabula nationum, quæ quomodo olim apud Hebræos dicta sint, et nunc dicantur, exposuit.” No other ancient authority mentions the work so far as I am aware.

 Chorography of Ancient Judea with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes. This work too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius in the same preface in the following words: τῆς π€λαι ᾽Ιουδαίας ἀπὸ π€σης Βίβλου καταγραφὴν πεποιημένος καὶ τὰς ἐν αὐτῇ τῶν δώδεκα φυλῶν διαιρῶν κλήρους. Jerome (  ib. ) says: “…Chorographiam terræ Judaeæ, et distinctas tribuum sortes …laboravit.”

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

 A Plan of Jerusalem and of the Temple, accompanied with Memoirs relating to the Various Localities. This too is lost, but is referred to by Eusebius (  ib. ) in the following words: ὡς ἐν γραφῆς τύπῳ τῆς π€λαι διαβοήτου μητροπόλεως αὐτῆς (λέγω δὲ τὴν ῾Ιερουσαλήμ) τοῦ τε ἐν αὐτῇ ἱεροῦ τὴν εἰκόνα διαχαρ€ξας μετὰ παραθέσεως τῶν εἰς τοὺς τύπους ὑπομνημ€των. Jerome (  ib. ) says: “ipsius quoque Jerusalem templique in ea cum brevissima expositione picturam, ad extremum in hoc opusculo laboravit.”

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

 On the Nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets (περὶ τῆς τοῦ βιβλίου τῶν προφητῶν ὀνομασίας καὶ ἀπὸ μέρους τί περιέχει ἕκαστος). This work contains brief accounts of the several prophets and notes the subjects of their prophecies. It is thus, so far as it goes, a sort of biographical dictionary. It was first published by Curterius in his  Procopii Sophistæ Christinæ variarum in Isaiam Prophetam commentationum epitome (Paris, 1850, under the title  De vitis Prophetarum, by which it is commonly known. We have no means of determining the date of its composition. Curterius’ text has been reprinted by Migne,  Opera, IV. 1261–1272.

VII. Orations.

 Panegyric on the Building of the Churches, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre (Πανηγυρικὸς ἐπὶ τῇ τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν οἰκοδομῇ, Παυλίνῳ Τυρίων ἐπισκόπῳ προσπεφωνημένος). This oration was delivered at the dedication of Paulinus’ new church in Tyre, to which reference has already been made (see above, p. 11). It has been preserved in Eusebius’  History, Book X. chap. 4 (see below, p. 370. sq.).

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

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

 Oration delivered at the Tricennalia of Constantine (εἰς Κωνσταντῖνον τὸν βασιλέα τριακονταετηρικός), commonly known under the title  Oratio de laudibus Constantini . In his  Vita Const . IV. 46, Eusebius promised to append this oration, together with the writing  On the Church and the Sepulchre , to that work. The  de laudibus is still found at the end of the mss. of the  Vita , while the other writing is lost. It was delivered in Constantinople in 335 on the occasion of the Emperor’s  tricennalia , very soon after the dedication of the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem (see above, p. 25). It is highly panegyrical, but contains a great deal of theology, especially in regard to the person and work of the Logos. Large portions of it were afterward incorporated into the  Vita Constantini and the  Theophania . The oration is published in most, if not all, editions of the  Vita Constantini ; in Migne,  Opera , II. 1315–1440.

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

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

VIII. Epistles.

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

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

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

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

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

IX. Spurious or Doubtful Works.

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

De fide adv. Sabellium, libri duo.

De Resurrectione, libri duo.

De Incorporali et invisibili Deo.

De Incorporali.

De Incorporali Anima.

De Spiritali Cogitatu hominis.

De eo quod Deus Pater incorporalis est, libri duo.

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

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

De operibus bonis et malis.

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

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

Lightfoot states that a treatise,  On the Star which appeared to the Magi , was published by Wright in the  Journal of Sacred Literature (1866) from a Syriac ms. It is ascribed to Eusebius, but its genuineness has been disputed, and good reasons have been given for supposing that it was written originally in Syriac (see Lightfoot, p. 345).

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