Attention!
Partner with StudyLight.org as God uses us to make a difference for those displaced by Russia's war on Ukraine.
Click to donate today!

Bible Encyclopedias

Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Eusebius of Caesarea

Additional Links

Eusebius Of Caesarea

the "father of Church history," was born about 270. The place of his birth is not certainly known, but it is supposed to have been Caesarea in Palestine. Coming to Antioch towards the end of the 3d century, he there studied the Scriptures under Dorotheus (Eusebius, H.E. 7:32). On his return to Caesarea he was ordained by Agapius then bishop of that place. Here he became intimate with Pamphilus, a learned presbyter, who was head of a divinity school at Caesarea and who had gathered many books illustrative of Scripture and theology, especially the writings of Origen. This friendship was lifelong, and from it Eusebius took the name Εὐσέβιος (ὁίλος ) τοῦ Παμφίλου, Eusebius Pamphili. It was probably under Pamphilus that Eusebius imbibed his fondness for the writings of Origen. During the persecution by Dioclesian, Pamphilus was imprisoned, and finally died a martyr (A.D. 309). Eusebius taught in the school of Pamphilus for years, but during the persecution he went to Tyre and to Egypt, where he himself was imprisoned as a confessor, and where he witnessed the sufferings of the faithful described in his Church History (book 8, c. 7, 9). Epiphanius (Her. 58:7) tells. us that Eusebius was charged at the Synod of Tyre (A.D. 335, where he sided against Athanasius), by Potamon, bishop of Heraclea, with having shown cowardice during the persecution in Egypt, and even with having offered incense to idols. But the charge doubtless arose from party feeling, as it is not likely that he could, with such a character, have been made bishop in that age. In 313 or 315 he was chosen bishop of Caesarea, which see he administered with eminent success for twenty-five years.

The part taken by Eusebius in the Arian controversy has been the subject of much dispute. When Arius was deposed by Alexander, he enlisted numerous bishops in his behalf, especially Eusebius of Nicomedia, namesake and friend of Eusebius of Caesarea; and the latter wrote to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria (two letters, of which fragments are extant), aiming, not to settle the doctrinal dispute, but rather to show that the views of Arius were misrepresented. He sought to reconcile the contending parties, and this conciliatory, if not compromising temper, characterized Eusebius through life. (See ARIUS); (See ATHANASIUS).

The part taken by Eusebius in the Council of Niceas (Nice, A.D. 325) is described by Valesius (Introd. to his edit. of Eusebius) as follows: "In this greatest and most celebrated council, Eusebius was far from an unimportant person; for 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 (Life of Constantine), and by Sozomen (Ecclesiastes Hist.). Afterwards, when there was a considerable contest amongst the bishops relative to a creed or form of faith, Eusebius proposed a formula at once simple and orthodox, which received the general commendation both of the bishops and of the emperor himself. Something, notwithstanding, seeming to be wanting in the creed, to confute the impiety of the new opinion, 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 was not. At first, indeed, Eusebius refused to admit the term ὁμοούσιος, but when the import of that word was explained to him by the other bishops he consented, and, as he himself relates in his letter to his diocese at Caesarea, subscribed to the creed (Socrates, H.E. i. 8). Some affirm that it was the necessity of circumstances, or the fear of the emperor, and not the conviction of his own mind, that induced Eusebius to subscribe to the Nicene Council. Of some present at the synod this might be believed, but we cannot think it of Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea. After the Nicene Council, too, Eusebius always condemned those who asserted that the Son of God was made of things not existing. Athanasins likewise affirms the same concerning him, and, though he frequently mentions that Eusebius subscribed to the Nicene Council, nowhere intimates that he did it insincerely. Had Eusebius subscribed to that council, not according to his own mind, but fraudulently and in pretense, why did he afterwards send the letter we have mentioned to his diocese at Caesarea, and therein ingenuously profess that he had embraced the faith which had been published in the Nicene Council?" (For details, see Socrates, Hist. Ecclesiastes 1:8-9.)

After the deposition of Eustathius (q.v.), A.D. 351, the see of Antioch was offered to Eusebius, but he declined the honor, probably in fear of tumult, and even bloodshed, from the excited state of the popular mind in Antioch. The conduct of Eusebius in this case greatly gratified the emperor Constantine, who wrote him a letter praising his prudence, and saying that he was worthy of being bishop, "not of the city merely, but of almost the whole world" (Socrates, H.E, 1:24). In the later course of the Arian dispute, Eusebius, though theoretically orthodox, substantially acted with the Arians to a great extent. Even in his Church History he avoids even mentioning the controversy, ending his book with A.D. 324. He presided at the Council of Tyre, A.D. 335 (Epiphanius, Haer. 58:7), summoned for the trial of Athanasius, and joined in the condemnation of that great man (see art. ATHANASIUS, volume 1, page 505). The prelates assembled at Jerusalem, and deputed Eusebius to the emperor Constantine, to obtain his approval of their decision, and he seems to have used his influence with the emperor to secure both the recall of Arius and the exile of Athanasius.

In his last years Eusebius lived in close intimacy with the emperor Constantine, who cherished the warmest esteem and affection for him. In A.D. 336 Eusebius wrote his Panegyric on Constantine. The emperor had assigned him the task of superintending the transcription of fifty copies of the Scriptures on parchment, for the use of the churches of Constantinople. This was the last literary labor in which be was engaged (Vita Constant. 4:35) before his death, which took place A.D. 340.

From the general tenor of his life as sketched above, it is not to be wondered that Eusebius has been charged with a leaning towards Arianism. "So thought, among the ancients, Hilary, Jerome (who otherwise speaks favorably of Eusebius), Theodoret, and the second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787), which unjustly condemned him, even expressly, as an Arian heretic; and so have thought, among moderns, Baronius, Petavius, Clericus, Tillemont, Gieseler; while the Church historian Socrates, the Roman bishops Gelasius and Pelagius II, Valesius, G. Bull, Cave (who enters into a full vindication, volume 1, page 111), and Samuel Lee (and most Anglicans), have defended the orthodoxy of Eusebius, or at least mention him with very high respect. The Gallican Church has even placed him in the catalogue of saints. Athanasius never expressly charges him with apostasy from the Nicene faith to Arianism, or to semi-Arianism, but frequently says that before 325 he held with Arius, and changed his opinion at Nicaea. This is the view of Mohler also (Athanasius d. Grosse, page 333 sq.), whom Dorner (Christology, 1:792) inaccurately reckons among the opponents of the orthodoxy of Eusebius. The testimonies of the ancients for and against Eusebius are collected in Migne's edition of his works, tom. 1, pages 68-98. Among recent writers, Dr. Samuel Lee has most fully investigated the orthodoxy of Eusebius in the preliminary dissertation to his translation of the Theophania from the Syriac, pages 24-49. He arrives at the conclusion (page 48) that Eusebius was no Arian, and that the same reasoning must prove that he was no semi-Arian; that he did in no degree partake of the error of Origen, ascribed to him so positively and so groundlessly by Photius. But this is merely a negative result." Schaff Hist. of the Christian Church, 2:874. Compare also Dupin, Ast. Eccl. (Paris, 1683), 2:1-15.

It is in the field of Church-history that the merits and services of Eusebius stand pre-eminent among early writers. He had large acquaintance with both Christian and pagan learning, and used it, if not with critical or philosophical skill, yet with patient industry and with literary integrity. He was the first to collect the scattered annals of the first three centuries of the Church in his Ecclesiastical History, the most important of all his writings, which traces the history of Christianity from the advent of the Messiah to the defeat of Licinius, A.D. 324. In this work he rejects, with greater care than is usually attributed to him, the doubtful facts and the fabulous narratives. And this is not his only merit. A living sympathy with the fortunes of Christianity, and earnest admiration for the heroism of its martyrs and confessors, inspires him throughout. "Others," he says in the beginning of the fifth book, "that compose historical narratives, would record nothing but victories in battle, the trophies of enemies, the warlike achievements of generals, the bravery of soldiers, sullied with blood and innumerable murders, for the sake of children, and country, and property. But our narrative embraces that conversation and conduct which is acceptable to God the wars and conflicts of a most pacific character, whose ultimate tendency is to establish the peace of the soul." In Dr. Schaff's opinion (Ch. Hist. 3:877), the Church History of Eusebius "gives a colorless, defective, incoherent, fragmentary, yet interesting picture of the heroic youth of the Church, and ewes its incalculable value not to the historic art of the authors but almost entirely to his copious and mostly literal extracts from foreign, and, in some cases, now extinct sources."

In the 8th book of the Ecclesiastical History (c. 2) Eusebius states that it is no part of his plan to relate all the wickedness and dissensions of the Christians before the persecution, or to name those who were untrue to the faith; adding, "we shall only, upon the whole, introduce those events into our history that may be profitable first to us of the present day, and hereafter to posterity." In the Martyr. Palestin. (chapter 12) he states as a historical principle that the "events most suitable to be recorded in a history of the martyrs are those which redound to their honor." Gibbon (Decline and Fall, chapter 16) remarks that "such an acknowledgment will naturally excite a suspicion that a writer who has so openly violated one of the fundamental laws of history has not paid a very strict regard to the observance of the other." Certainly it was an error of judgment in Eusebius to hold back anything in his accounts. The Scripture might have taught him better; it does not omit the faults of patriarchs or saints. If nothing, moreover, is to be told of martyrs but "what redounds to their honor," one's admiration of these honorable facts must be lessened by the fear that what is kept back might counterbalance what is told. The principle of Eusebius is here historically bad. But Gibbon attacks Eusebius still more strongly in his Vindication of Chapters 15 and 16 of his history. Eusebius gives as the title of chapter 31, book 12, of the Praeparat. Evang., the question "How far it may be lawful to use falsehood as a medicine for the benefit of those who need such a procedure?" He begins the chapter with a citation from Plato (De Legibus, 2), as follows: "A legislator of any value, even if the fact were not such as our discourse has just established it, if in any case he might make bold to deceive young persons for their advantage; could he possibly inculcate any falsehood more profitable than this, or more potent to lead all without force or compulsion to the practice of all justice? 'Truth, my friend, is honorable and permanent; but not, it would seem, very easy of persuasion.'

To this passage of Plato, Eusebius adds: "You may find a thousand such instances in the Scriptures, where God is described as jealous, or sleeping, or angry, or liable to other human affections, so expressed for the advantage of those who require such a method (ἐπ᾿ ὠφελείᾷ τῶν δεομένων τοῦ τοιούτου τρόπου ).'" This is all that is said on the subject, and it may be interpreted to mean nothing more than that one's statements must be adapted to the understanding of his hearers or readers. But the use of the word "falsehood" in the heading of the chapter shows that, in the mind of Eusebius, either there was no just appreciation of the difference between "falsehood" and "accommodation," or else that his moral sense as to veracity had been vitiated by the ecclesiastical casuistry which even in his time had begun to show itself. It is easily to be seen, however, that Gibbon really misleads his readers by his statement of the case: "In this chapter," says he, "Eusebius alleges a passage of Plato which approves the occasional practice of pious and salutary frauds; nor is he ashamed to justify the sentiments of the Athenian philosopher by the example of the sacred writers of the Old Testament." This is not warranted by the passage, which is fully cited above. We adopt, nevertheless, the remark of Waddington (History of the Church, chapter 6, ad fin.): "It was disgraceful to the less enlightened fathers of the second and third centuries that, even in the midst of trial and tribulation, they borrowed a momentary succor from the profession of falsehood; but the same expedient was still more shameful to Eusebius, who flourished during the prosperity of the Church, whose age and more extensive learning left him no excuse in ignorance or inexperience, and whose great name and unquestionable piety gave sanction and authority to all his opinions. There can be no doubt, then, that the publication of that detestable principle in any one of his writings, however modified and limited by his explanation, must to a certain extent disturb our confidence in the rest; the mind which does not profess to be constantly guided by truth possesses no claim to our implicit submission. Nevertheless, the works of Eusebius must at last be judged by the character which severally pervades them, not by any single principle which the author has once only laid down, to which he has not intended (as it would seem) to give general application, and which he has manifestly proposed rather as a philosophical speculation than as a rule for his own composition. At least we feel convinced that whoever shall calmly peruse his Ecclesiastical History will not discover in it, any deliberate intention to deceive; in the relation of miraculous stories he is more sparing than most of the Church historians who succeeded him, and seemingly even than those whom he has copied; and, upon the whole, we shall not do him more than justice if we consider him as an avowed but honest advocate, many of whose statements must be examined with suspicion, while the greater part bear direct and incontestable marks of truth."

Of his Chronicon it has also been justly asserted, "'that for centuries it was the source of all synchronistical knowledge of history in the Greek, Latin, Oriental, and Christian world, everywhere translated, continued, excerpted, and made the basis of the different works on this subject." His panegyrical writings on Constantine, however, afford, with much that is commendable and historically useful, abundant proofs of the weakness of his moral fibre, and of his sycophancy in dealing with the emperor. But it is to his credit that he never used his influence at court for merely personal ends. When Constantine on one occasion at Caesarea asked Eusebius to demand a favor for his Church, he declared "his Church was not in need of any favors. The only boon he asked was permission to use the public archives to enable him to write a history of the martyrs; which favor was readily granted him" (Jerome, Ep. ad Chromatium et Heliodorum; comp. Hefele in the Freib. Kirchen-Lex. 6:135 et sq.). Less important than the historical works of Eusebius, but nevertheless very meritorious, are his Apologetical writings, the most extensive in ancient apologetics. His notices of the oldest mythologies in the Praeparatio Evangelica are a valuable storehouse for theologians and philologists. In the field of doctrinal theology (contra Marcellum) the writings of Eusebius appear to less advantage than in any other. They touch upon the great question of his time, the Person of Christ. In these writings, as in his practical life, he appears to waver between orthodoxy and subordinationism.

The writings of Eusebius are here classified as A. Historical; B. Apologetic; C. Dogmatic; D. Exegetical.

A. Historical.

1. The ἱστορία ἐκκλησιαστική, Ecclesiastical History, in ten books, beginning with the incarnation of Christ, relates the history of the Church, including accounts of writers, martyrs, persecutions, etc., up to A.C. 324. It was probably composed before the Nicene Council (325), as, near its close, Crispus, the eldest son of Constantine, is very favorably mentioned, which could hardly have happened after the execution of Crispus (325). The best editions of the History, with the Greek text, are Valesius, with life of Eusebius prefixed (Par. 1659-1673, 3 volumes, fol., often reprinted); Reading's edition of Valesius's Eusebius (Gr. and Lat.), with the fragments of Theodoret, Evagrius, and Philostorgius (Camb. 1720 and 1746, 3 volumes, fol.); Zimmermann, Hist. Ecclesiastes (Francfort, 1822, Gr. and Lat., 2 volumes, 8vo); Heinichen, Hist. Eccles., Reading's edition of Valesius, with Stroth's notes, and additional notes and indices by the editor (Leips. 1827-8, 3 volumes, 8vo; also see below); Burton, Hist. Ecclesiastes (Gr.) (Oxon, 1838, 1845, 1856, 8vo), also Annotationes Variorum, 2 volumes, 8vo (Oxon, 1842, 2 vols& 8vo); cheap edition by Schwegler (Tibing. 1852, 8vo) Laemmer, Hist. Eccles., cum tabulis specimina cod. vii cont. (Schaffhausen, 1862, large 8vo, page 836, with tables in fol.).

English Translations. Hanmer, Ch. History of Eusebins, Socrates, and Evagrius, with the Life and Panegyric of Constantine (Cambridge, 1577, and often, fol.); the same, with Saltonstall's translation of The Life of Constantine (1650, fol.; 1663, fol.); Wells (based on the preceding, 1709, fol.); Parker's abridred (Lond. 1729, 4to); best translation, Cruse's (with Bovle's Council of Nice, Philadelphia, 1846; 10th ed. N.Y. 1856, 8vo; also in Bohn's Ecclesiastical Library, Lond, 12mo; and in Bagster's Greek Eccl. Historians, Lond. 1843. 8vo).

German Trasnslations. Hedion (Strasb. 154, fol.); Stroth (Quedlinburg, 1777, 3 volumes, 8vo); Closs (in two editions, one for Romanists, the other for Protestants, Stuttgart, 1839, 8vo). French translation by Cousin (Paris, 1675, and often). On the Moscow MS. of the Eccl. Hist., see Zeits. Hist. Theol. 1861, page 311, and Theolog. Stud. u. Krit. 1858, heft 3.

2. The χρονικῶν κανόνων παντοδαπὴ ἱστορία, generally callel Chronicon, hibb. 2, is an abridgment of the history of the world from its creation up to A.D. 325, with chronological tables, in which the chronography of Julius Africanus is largely made use of. For the arbitrary changes made by Busebius in the text of Africanus, see Brunet de Presle, Dynasties Egyptiennes (Paris, 1850, 8vo). Of this chronicle there remain fragments in Greek and two translations: one in Latin by Jerome, and one in Armenian. The latter was first edited by Zohraab (Milan, 1818), Latin, by A. Mai; better ed. by Aucher (Lat. version from the Arrmenian, with the Greek fragments, Venet. 1818, 4to; reprinted in Migne, Patrol. Graec. tom. 19); new edithon by Schone (the Armenian translated by Peter.mann and Rodiger, Berlin, 1866).

3. The Life of Constantine, εἰς τὸν βίον Κωνσταντίνου τοῦ βασιλέως λόγοι 4; de vita Constantini, lib. 4; generally printed with the Ecclesiastical Hist. (see above); also separately, ed. by Heinichen, with Reading's and Stroth's notes, etc. (Leipsic, 1829, 8vo); English translation in Bohn's Ecclesiastes Library (London, 12mo).

4. Panegyric on Constantine, εἰς Κωνσταντῖνον τριακόντα ετηρικός, an oration in praise of Constantine on .the thirtieth anniversary of his accession; generally printed with the Church History; also in Heinichen's Life of Constantine (see above, 3).

5. Σύγγραμμα περὶ τῶν κατ᾿ αὐτὸν μαρτυρισάντων , de martyribus Palestinw; really, de martyribus suis tcmparis; containing reports of numerous martyrs of the Diocletian persecution (A.D. 303-310), printed as an appendix to the eighth books of the Ecclesiastes History; specially interesting is Cureton's History of the Martyrs of Palestine, by Eusebius,— discovered in a very ancient Syrian MS., and transl. into English (Lond. 1860, 8vo); given also in Migne, Patrol. Graec. tom. 20.

6. The Acta St. Pamphili et sociorum (on the Martyrdom of his teacher Pamphilus) is only a fragment of a work on the life of Pamphilus, in three books which seems to have been lost.

B. Apologetic.

1. The Preparation of the Gospel History, προπαρασκευὴ εὐαγγελική, praparatia evangelica, in fifteen books. In the first six books Eusebius vindicates Christianity by extracts from Grecian and Roman writers, and by criticisms on them and on the Phoenician and Egyptian mythologies and worship. In books 7-15 he treats of Judaism, its religion, history and institutions, showing its superiority to heathenism. The work pictures the condition of the world previous to the advent of Christ. Ed. by Rob. Stephens (Gr. 1544), and with Latin version by Viger (Paris, 1628, Cologne, 1688); ed. by Heinichen (Lips. 1842-3, 2 volumes, 8vo); ad. by Gaisford (Oxf. 1843, 4 volumes, 8vo); also in Migne, Patrol. Graec. t. 21. Cumberland translated Sanchoniathon's Phoenician History from book 1 of the Praep. Evang. (Lond. 1720, 8vo).

2. The Evangelical Demonstration, ἀπόδειξις εὐαγγελική, demonstratio evangelica, in twenty books, of which only ten remain. Eusebius wrote in order to prove that the Christian religion is demonstrably true fronc its internal character, and from the fulfillment of the Jewish prophecies. He points out the true relations between Judaism and Christianity, and the provisional character of the latter; and in books 3- 10 he comments on the Messianic prophecies. This work is intended to be the complement of the Praepar. Evang. (see above). Translated into Latin by Donatus of Verona, and published either at Rome or Venice in 1498; and at Cologne in 1542. The Greek text appeared, with that of the Praeparatio, at Paris in the editions both of Robt. Stephens and Viger (see above, 1); also separately by Stephens (Paris, 1545, fol.), edited by Gaisford (Gr. and Latin, Oxford, 1852, 2 volumes, 8vo); abridged German version in Rdssler, Bibl. der Kirchemviter (1778, 8vo), 5:203 sq.

3. Of a similar character are

(a) the ἐκλογαὶ προφητικαί , Ecloga Propheticae, of which four books only are preserved. They give mostly allegorical interpretations of Old- Test. Messianic passages (edited by Gaisford, Oxon. 1842, 8vo; also in Migne, Patrologisa Grac.).

(b) The five books of The Theophany, θεοφανεία, preserved in a Syriac translation, long lost, but discovered by Tattam. in 1839 in a Nitrian monastery, and published under the title Eusebius on the Theophania. or divine Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated from an ancient Syriac Version of the Greek Original now lost, with Notes, and a Vindication of the Orthodoxy and prophetical Views of the Au thor, by Prof. S. Lee (Camb. 1843, 8vo). Dr. Lee assigns the MSS. (now in the British Museum) to the year A.D. 411. The Greek fragments, with Lat. version, compared also with Lee's edition, are given in Migne, Patrol. Graec. 24:607 sq. See a full treatment of this subject in Ceillier, Ant. Sacr. (Par. 1865, 8va), page 258 sq.

4. The small work, Against Hierocles, πρὸς τὰ ὑπὸ Φιλοστράτου εἰς Απολλώνιον τὸν Τυανέα διὰ τὴν ῾Ιεροκλεῖ παραληφθεῖσαν αὐτοῦ το καὶ Χριστοῦ σύγκρισιν, generally cited Adversus Hieroclem, shows very ably that the magician amid philosopher Apollonius of Tyana cannot bear comparison with Christ. It is to be found in Morell's Philostratus; (Gr. and Lat., Paris, 1608); edited, with new transl. and notes, by Olearius (Leips. 1709); eand, with the libri contra Marcellum, ead. by Gaisford (Oxon, 1852, 8vo); also in Migne, Patrol. Graec. 22:795 sq.

C. Dogmatical and Polemical.

1. Two books, κατὰ Μαρκέλλου , contra Marcellum, written by desire of the Council of Constantinople (held A.D. 336) to vindicate the condemnation of Marcellus for Sabellianism by that council (see Hefelea Conciliengeschichte, volume 1, § 51). It is given in Viger's ed. of the Praep. Evang. (1628 and 1688); also in Gaisford's edition of the Liber cont. Hieroclem, (Oxon, 1852, 8vo); and in Migne, Patrol. Gicec. 24:707.

2. The three books, Of the Ecclesiastical Theology, περὶ τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς θεολογίας, De ecclesiastica theologia, are likewise intended against Marcellus, as θεολογία here means sermo de Filio Dei ejusque natura divina, with a biblico-dogmatical proof of the hypostatical existence of the Son. It is given (Greek and Latin) by Rettberg (Gottingen, 1794); in Covst. Hieroclem, ed. by Gaisford (Oxon, 1852, 8vo); and in Migne, Patrol. Graec. 24, 826 sq.

3. The short treatise, περὶ τῆς τοὺ πάσχα ἑορτῆς, De solemnitate paschali, treats of the typical character of the Jewish Passover, and of its consummation in the new covenant. It is in Migne, Patrologia Graec. 24:694 sq.

4. Fourteen smaller treatises. among which the most important are, Dejide adv. Sabelliums, De resurrectione, De incorporali animna; quod Deus Pater incorporalis sit, which remain only in Latin, and are all contained in Migne, Patrologia Graeca, tom. 24.

D. Exegetical. These are partly introductory; partly commentaries, written upon the allegorical method of Origen, and without any knowledge of Hebrew.

1 The Onomasticon, or περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν τῇ θείᾷ γραφῇ, De locis Hebraicis, a topographical and alphabetical index of the names of places occurring in the Bible. It was translated into Latin by Jearome, and edited in Greek by Bonfrerius (Paris, 1631, and 1659, fol.); Gr. and Lat. in Hieron. Opera, t. 2 (Paris, 1699); by (Clericus (Amst. 1707, fol.); by Lard sow and Parthey (Berlin, 1862, 8vo).

2. Evangelici canones, a kind of Gospel-harmony, to be found in the editions of the N.T. by Erasmus, Stephens, and Mill; also in Migne, Patrolog. Graec. 22:1273 sq.

3. Ζητήματα καὶ λύσεις, Quaestiones evangelicae, in three books, containing solutions of seeming contradictions of the evangelists; edited by Mai in his Coll. Script. Vet. (1825, 4to), 1:101 sq. 4. Commentaries on the Psalms and On Isaiah, which are preserved to a great extent, and given in Migne, Patrol. Graeca, tom. 24 and 25. Of his commentary on Solomon's Song, Proverbs, Daniel, and Luke, only fragments are left us, which are given in Migne, Patrol. Graec. tom. 24, who prints also Mai's newly-discovered fragments from his Nov. Patr. Bibliotheca, volume 4.

There is no absolutely complete edition of the works of Eusebius. The. nearest to such are Eusebii Pamphili Opera Omnia, Lat. (Basil. 1542, 4 volumes, fol.; 1559, 2 volumes, fol.; Paris, 1581, fol.); most complete of all (following Valesius, Montfaucon, Mai, and Gaisford), Migne, Patrol. Grcec. volumes 19-24. A new edition of the Scripta Historica, by Heinichen, was begun in 1867 (volume 1, 8vo, the Hist. Eccles.); and of the Opera Omnia by Dindorf (Leipsic, 1865-67, volumes 1-3, 8vo).

See Cave, Hist. Lit. 1:111; Dupin, Auteurs Ecclesiastes 2:1-15; Fabricius, Bibl. Graeca, ed. Harles, 7:335 sq.; Oudin, Script. Ecclesiastes 1:312 sq.; Lardner, Works, 4:69 sq.; Hoffmann, Bibliog. Lexikon, 1:98 sq.; Ceillier, Auteurs Sacres (Paris, 1865), 3:168 sq.; Neander, Ch. History, Torrey's transl., 2:367, 383; Jortin, Remarks on Ecclesiastes Hist. (London, 1767), 2:252; Waddington, Church History (in 1 volume), chapter 6; Schaff, History of the Christian Church, volume 3, § 161; Alzog, Patrologie, § 44; Lardner, Works, 4:69; Hefele, Conciliengesch. 1:233 et al.; Dowling, On the Study of Ecclesiastes Hist. page 13 sq.; Kestner, De Fide Eusebii (Gottingen, 1817); Baur, Comp. Euseb. cum Herodoto (Tubing. 1834,12mo); Hilnnell, De Eusebio Relig. Christ. Defensore (Getting. 1843); Lamson, Church of the First Three Centuries, 233 sq.; Dorner, Person of Christ (Edinb. transl.), div. 1, volume 2:218 sq.; Waterland, Works, 2:475 sq.

Eusebius Of Dorylaeum,

born at the end of the fifth century, began his public life as a lawyer, and obtained the place of imperial commissioner (agens in rebus). Evagrius (Hist. Ecclesiastes 1:9) says of him that, "while still practising as a rhetorician, he was the first to expose the blasphemy of Nestorius." It seems to have been he who interrupted Nestorius in a sermon about A. D. 430 (when he denied to Mary the title θεοτόκος ), by crying aloud, "No, the eternal Logos himself subjected himself to a second birth." This, at least, is the conclusion of Neander (Church History, Torrey's transl., 2:504). He also thinks it probable that Eusebius was the author of the formal complaint publicly posted against Nestorius in the church of Constantinople, comparing him to Paul of Samosata (Neander, 1.c.). It is possible that it was as a reward for this zeal that he was made bishop.

At all events, he entered into orders, and became bishop of Dorylaeum, in Phrygia. In the year 448, at the Home Council (σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα ), held at Constantinople, he entered complaint against Eutyches (whom he had previously warned privately), as holding false and blasphemous doctrines, contrary to the fathers, as to the person of Christ (Mansi, Concil. 6:495, 650). (See EUTYCHES). At this synod Eutyches was condemned, but in the next year, at the Robber-Council, (See EPHESUS, ROBBER-COUNCIL OF), Eutyches was restored, and Eusebius condemned and deprived of his see. When he attempted at this council to explain the doctrine of two natures in Christ, voices exclaimed, "Burn Eusebius! As he has cut Christ asunder, so let him be cut asunder." He fled to Rome. The tide was turned by the death of Theodosius, A.D. 450. Leo the Great, bishop of Rome, prevailed upon Marcian, the successor of Theodosius, to convene another general council, which met at Chalcedon A.D. 451, and Eusebius was restored to his see. A few polemical writings of Eusebius are still extant, as Consertatio adversus Nestorium (in the works of Marius Mercator, 2, page 18): Libellus adversus Eutycheten (in; Labbe, volume 4, page 151): Libellus adversus Dioscurum (ib. volume 4, page 380): Epistola ad Marcianum imperatorem (ib. page 95). Neander, Ch. Hist. 2:505-513; Hoefer, Nouv. Biog. Gener. 16:777.

Copyright Statement
These files are public domain.

Bibliography Information
McClintock, John. Strong, James. Entry for 'Eusebius of Caesarea'. Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature. https://www.studylight.org/encyclopedias/eng/tce/e/eusebius-of-caesarea.html. Harper & Brothers. New York. 1870.

Search for…
Enter query in the box below:
Choose a letter to browse:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z