VALESIUS'S ACCOUNT Concerning the LIFE AND WRITINGS OF Eusebius Caesariensis.
COncerning the Life of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, Acacius His Scholar and Successour in the See of Caesarea had heretofore written a Book, asa Socrates does attest. But in regard this Book, together with very many others, is lost by the carelesness of Anti∣quity, we, by gathering together from this place and t'other the Testimonies of Ancient Writers who have spoken concerning Eusebius, to the utmost of our ability will endeavour to repair that Loss. Eusebius therefore was born in Palestine, about the Close (as 'tis likely) of Gallienus's Reign. That he was a Native of Palestine is hence prov'd, because by the Ancients he is commonly call'd a Palestinian. So, 'tis certain, Basilius, Theodoret, and others do term him. And although he might have been thus Sur-nam'd from his being Bishop of the City Caesarea, yet it seems to me truer, that he drew that Sur-name from his Country. Indeed, he himself does attest, in his First b Book con∣cerning the Life of Constantine, that during his being a youth he was educated and conversant in Palestine, and that Constantine was first seen by him there, whilst he made a journey thorow Pa∣lestine in the Court of Diocletianus Augustus. Be∣sides, in the Second c Book of the same work (where he records a Law of Constantine's, which he wrote to the Palestinians in favour of the Chri∣stians,) he does plainly shew himself to have been a Palestinian. For, after he has recited the Con∣tents of that Law transmitted to the Palestinians, he adds these words.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. These were the Constitutions con∣tained in the Emperour's first Edict sent to Us. But whereas I have plac'd his Birth upon the Lat∣ter end of Gallienus's Reign; of this thing I have Eusebius himself for my Authour. For speaking (in his Books of Ecclesiastick History,) con∣cerning Dionysius Bishop of the Alexandrians, he does attest that He had lived in his own age, as may be seen in Book 3, Chap. 28. Wherefore, in regard 'tis manifest that Dionysius Alexandrinus departed this life on the twelfth year of Gallienus's Empire, Eusebius must of necessity have been born then, if his age fell on those times wherein Diony∣sius lived. The same may likewise be gathered from the Fifth d Book of his Ecclesiastick History, about the end of it, where speaking concerning Ar∣temon's Heresie, he writes that Paul of Samosata had revived that Heresie inehis age. Lastly, relating (in his Seventh Book,) those things which hapned during the Reign of Gallienus, before he begins his Discourse concerning the Er∣rour and Condemnation of Paul of Samosata, he has these words.f〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. But now, after an historical rela∣tion of these things, we will deliver to the know∣ledge of posterity an account of our own age. Whom he had for his Parents, is unknown to us, excepting that Nicephorus Callistus, following I know not what Authours, does tell us that he was begotten of the Sister of Pamphilus the Martyr. But in Arius's g Letter to Eusebius Bishop of Ni∣comedia, he is termed the Brother of Eusebius Ni∣comediensis. And although by reason of his friendship he might be called the Brother, yet it seems truer to me, that he was either the near Kinsman or Cousin-germane of Eusebius Nicomedi∣ensis, especially in regard Arius, although many other persons are there mentioned, yet terms onely Eusebius of Caesarea Brother to him of Nicomedia. Be∣sides, Eusebius of Nicomedia was a Native of Syria. For he was at first Bishop of Berytus. Nor was it the usage then, that strangers and persons unknown should be preferred to govern Churches. What Masters he had in secular Lear∣ning, is in like manner unknown to us. But in sacred Literature he had Dorotheus the Eunuch, a Presbyter of the Antiochian Church, for his Ma∣ster: of whom also he makes an honourable men∣tion in his Seventh h Book. Although Eusebius at that place says onely, that he had heard Doro∣theus, whilst he expounded the Holy Scriptures in the Church not unfitly. Nevertheless, if any one has a mind (with Trithemius) to conclude from those words of Eusebius, that Eusebius was Doro∣theus's disciple, truly I shall not very much oppose him. Theotecnus being at that time dead, the Bishoprick of the Church of Caesarea was admi∣nistredPage [unnumbered]by Agapius, a person of eminent piety, and large bounty towards the poor. By him Eusebius was admitted into the Clergy, and entred into the strictest and most intimate friendship with Pamphilus, who at that time was eminent amongst the Presbyters of the Church of Caesarea. Pam∣philus was by Nation a Phoenician, born at Bery∣tus. Scholar to Pierius a Presbyter of the Alex∣andrian Church, as Photius relates. Who (in regard he was inflamed with a singular Love of sacred Learning, and with the greatest diligence imaginable made a Collection of all the Books of Ecclesiastick Writers, and especially of Origen's;) founded a most famous School and Library at Caesarea. Of which School Eusebius seems to have been the first Master. Indeed Eusebius, in his a Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine, writes in express words, that Apphianus, who compleated his Martyrdom on the third year of the Perse∣cution, had been instructed in the Sacred Scriptures by him in the City Caesarea. From that time Eusebius always lived with Pamphilus in the clos•st intimacy, and continued his inseparable com∣panion till his death: so dear to him, that from his friendship he got the surname of Pamphilus. Nor did Eusebius love him whilst he liv'd, but had a singular affection for him when dead also: in so much that after Pamphilus's death, he always made a most honourable, and likewise a most loving mention of him. This is attested by those Three Books which he wrote concerning the Life of Pamphilus the Martyr, which Books St Jerome terms most elegant ones. The same is likewise gathered from many passages which occur in his Ecclesiastick History, and in his Book concerning the Martyrs of Palestine. Lastly, in his Second Book against Sabellius, which was written by Eusebius after the Nicene Council, he frequently commends Pam∣philus the Martyr, although he suppresses his name. For even in the very beginning of his Discourse he says thus. Puto adhuc aures ob∣strepi meas à memoria beati illius viri, &c. I think my Ears are as yet struck by the memory of that Blessed man, who frequently made use of that devout word. For even your ears do as yet retain the sound of that word. For I think I hear him saying, The onely-begotten Son of God. For this Religious word was al∣ways uttered by his mouth. For it was the re∣membrance of the Onely-Begotten, to the Glory of the unborn Father. Now, we have heard the Apostle commanding, that Presbyters ought to be honoured with a double honour, those espe∣cially who labour in the Word and Doctrine. And at pag. 29, he speaks of him again in this manner. Haec non nos extollunt, &c. These things do not puff us up, b remembring that Blessed man. Now I wish I could so speak, as together with you I did always hear from him. But these words which are now said, seem to have been pleasing to him. For 'tis the Glory of Good Servants, to speak truth concerning the Lord; and 'tis the honour of those Fathers who have taught well, if their Doctrines be repeated. And again in the same Book, pag. 37. Haec au∣diebamus semper a beato illo viro. &c. These words we always heard from that Blessed man. For they were often spoken in this manner by him: although some suspected, that he uttered these words with his mouth, but that in his heart he thought otherwise. And indeed I remember with you, that I have heard from him, that he hath satisfied us with an holy oath, that there was not one thing in his tongue, and another in his heart. And a little after. Sed 〈◊〉 quidem paucis, &c. But now, Let thus much be said by us in short, in memory and honour of that Our Father, so Good, so Laborious, and every where vigilant for the Churches. For we have not made mention of his Stock, nor of his Education, or Learning, or of c the rest of his Life and Reso∣lution. Which passages in Eusebius (that I may not defraud any one of his commendation,) were shown me by the Most Learned Franciscus Oge∣rius. Now, from what I have said it may be evi∣dently enough gathered, that Eusebius was joyned to Pamphilus by nodTye of kindred, but by the Bond of friendship onely. 'Tis certain, Euseb us, although he names Pamphilus in so many places, and boasts so highly of his friendship, yet never terms him his Kinsman or Relation. Tea, from Eusebius's own Testimony 'tis plainly made out; that Pamphilus the Martyr was not Eusebius's Kinsman. For in the close of his Seventh e Book of Ecclesiastick History, where he makes mention of Agapius Bishop of the Church of Caesarea, his words are these.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. In this man's time we knew Pamphilus (a most eloquent man, and a true Philosopher in the practises of his Life) honoured with a Presbytership of that Church. Whereas there∣fore Eusebius himself does attest, that Pamphilus was first known by him then, it is sufficiently ap∣parent, that they were not joyned together by any kindred or affinity. In these times hapned that most severe Persecution of the Christians▪ which being first begun by Diocletian, was by the fol∣lowing Emperours continued to the tenth year. In the time of this Persecution, Eusebius, in regard he was then a Presbyter of the Church of Caesarea, resided almost constantly in that City, and by con∣tinual Exhortations instructed many persons in order to Martyrdom. Amongst whom was Ap∣phianus, a noble Youth, whose illustrious Com∣bat Our Eusebius does relate in his f Book con∣cerning the Martyrs of Palestine. In the same Persecution Pamphilus was taken, and cast into Prison, where he spent two whole years in Bonds. During which time Eusebius in no wise deserted his Friend and Companion: but visited him con∣tinually, and in the Prison wrote together with him Five Books in defence of Origen: the Sixth and last Book of that Work he at length finished after Pamphilus was dead. That whole work was by Eusebius and Pamphilus dedicated to the Confessours living in the Mines of Palestine, as Photius relates in his Bibliotheca, Chapter 118. In the time of the same Persecution, on account of some urgent Business of the Church, as 'tis pro∣bable; Eusebius went to Tyre. During his re∣sidence in that City, he attests (Book 8. Chap 7.) that he himself was eye-witness of the Glorious Combats of five Egyptian Martyrs. And in the Ninth Chapter of the same Book▪ he writes that he came into Egypt and Thebais, whilst the fury of the Persecution as yet rag'd; and that there he beheld with his own eyes, the admirable constancy of many Martyrs of both Sexes. There are those who relate, that Eusebius in this Persecution, to free himself from the Troubles of a Prison, sacri∣ficed to Idols: and that that was objected against him by the Egyptian Bishops and Confessours in the Synod at Tyre, as we will hereafter relate, But, I doubt not but this is false, and a calu••y forged by the Enemies of Eusebius▪ For, had soPage [unnumbered]great a Crime been really committed by Eusebius, how could he have been afterwards made Bishop of the Church of Caesarea? How is it likely that he should have been invited by the Antiochians, to undertake the Episcopate of that City? And yet Cardinal Baronius has catcht up that as cer∣tain and undoubted, which was objected against Eusebius by the way of contention and wrangling, by his Enemies, nor was ever confirm'd by any one's Testimony. At the same time, a Book was written by Eusebius against Hierocles. The oc∣casion of writing it was given by Hierocles of Nicomedia, who about the beginning of this Per∣secution, when the Churches of the Christians were every where demolished, insulting as 'twere over the disquieted Religion, in the City Nico∣media published two Books against the faith of Christ, which he entitled 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 In which Books amongst other things he asserted this, that Apollonius Tyaneus performed far more and greater Miracles than Christ; as Lactantius does attest in his a Seventh Book. But Eusebius con∣temning the Man, rested satisfied in confuting him in a very short Book. Agapius Bishop of Cae∣sarea being dead during this interval, and the Per∣secution being now abated, and peace restored to the Church; by the general consent of all persons. Eusebius is put into his place. Others make Agricola (who was present at, and subscribed to the Synod of Ancyra, on the year of Christ 314,) Successour to Agapius. So Baronius in his Annals, at the year of Christ 314; and Blon∣dellus in his. Apology pro sententiá B. Hiero∣nymi, Chap. 19. Where he writes, that Euse∣bius undertook the Administration of the Church of Caesarea after Agricola's death, about the year of Christ 315. But those Subscriptions of the Bishops which are extant in the Latine Collections of the Canons, in my judgment seem to have little of certainty and validity in them. For they occur not either in the Greek Copies, or in the Latine Version of Dionysius Exiguus. Besides, Eusebius reckoning up (in the Seventh b Book of his Ecclesiastick History,) the Bishops of the chief Sees, under whom the Persecution began and rag'd, ends in Agapius Bishop of Cae∣sarea, who (says he) took a great deal of pains in that Persecution for the good of his own Church. He therefore must of necessity have sate Bishop untill the end of the Persecution. But Eusebius was made Bishop immediately after the Persecu∣tion was ended. For when Paulinus Bishop of Tyre dedicated a Cathedral, sometime after Peace and repose was restored to the Church; He, together with other Bishops, was invited by Pau∣linus to its Dedication, and made a most Eleg•nt Oration before him, as we are informed from the Tenth c Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Now, this hapned before Licinius rebell'd against Con∣stantine, which fell out on the year of Our Lord 315. About these times Eusebius wrote those famous Books concerning Evangelick Demon∣stration and Preparation. Which Books, 'tis plain, were written before the Nicene Council, in regard they are by name cited in his Eccle∣siastick History, which was written by Eusebius before that Council, as we have shown in Our Annotations. In the interim Licinius, who managed the Government in the Eastern Parts, incited by a sudden rage, began to persecute the Christians: especially those that were Prelates, of whom he had a suspicion that they shewed more of favour to Constantine, and put up prayers for him. But Constantine undertook an Ex∣pedition against Licinius, and in a short time com∣pell'd him, after he had been vanquished in two fights by Land and Sea, to a Surrendry. And thus Peace was again by Constantine restored to the Christians, who inhabited the East. But a far more vehement disturbance was at that time rais'd amongst the Christians themselves. For Arius a Presbyter of the City Alexandria, in re∣gard he would publickly in the Church preach up some new and impious Opinions concerning the Son of God, and having been frequently admonished by Alexander the Bishop, would nevertheless per∣sist in those Assertions, was at length condemned together with the Associates of •his own Errour, and was expell'd out of the Church. High∣ly resenting this his Condemnation, he sent Letters, with a draught of his own Faith, to all the Bi∣shops of the neighbouring Cities: wherein he com∣plain'd, that he had been undeservedly deposed by Alexander, in regard he asserted the same Points that the rest of the Eastern Prelates maintained. Many Bishops impos'd upon by these Artifices, and powerfully incited by Eusebius of Nicome∣dia, who was an open Favourer of Arius's Party, wrote Letters in defence of Arius, to Alexander Bishop of the City Alexandria, entreating him to restore Arius to his former place. Our Eusebius was one of their number, whose Letter writ∣ten to Alexander, is extant in the Acts of the Seventh Occumenical Synod, and is by us put a∣mongst thed Testimonies of the Ancients. Euse∣bius Caesariensis's example being presently fol∣lowed by Theodotus and Paulinus, the one Bi∣shop of Laodicea, the other of Tyre; they inter∣ceded with Alexander for Arius's restitution. Whose Letters, as Patronizing his own Opinions, in regard Arius boasted of in all places, and by the authority of such great men drew many per∣sons into a Society of his own Errour; on this account Alexander himself also was forc'd to write Letters to the other▪ Bishops of the East, whereby it might be made publickly known, that Arius, together with his Associates, had been justly condemn'd and depos'd. Two Letters of Alex∣anders are at this present extant: the one to A∣lexander Bishop of Constantinople, in which A∣lexander complains of three Bishops of Syria, who agreeing in opinion with Arius had inflamed the quarrel, which they ought rather to have extin∣guished, and had rendred it siercer than it was before. These three are Eusebius, Theodotus, and Paulinus, as may be collected from Arius's Letter written to Eusebius Bishop of Nicomedia. The other Letter of Alexanders written to all the Bishops throughout the world, Socrates re∣cords in his First e Book. To these Letters of A∣lexander almost all the Eastern Bishops subscrib•d: amongst whom the Prelates of chiefest note were, Philogonius Bishop of Antioch; Eustathius of Be∣roea, and Macarius of Jerusalem. Now, those Bishops who feem'd to be of Arius's side, in re∣gard they saw themselves severely touch'd in A∣lexanders Letters, made it their business to de∣fend Arius with far more of fierceness and Ve∣hemency: but most especially Eusebius Nicome∣diensis. For our Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, to∣gether with Patrophilus and Paulinus, and other Bishops of Syria, concluded upon this onely, that Arius the Presbyter should have a Liberty of holding Assemblies in his own Church; never∣theless, that he should be subject to Alexander the Bishop, and should earnestly request of him that he might be admitted to Peace and Commu∣nion. The Bishops in this manner disagreeingPage [unnumbered]amongst themselves, and some favouring Alexan∣ders, others Arius's side; the Contention was incredibly height'ned. To cure which mischief, Constantine assembled a General Synod of Bi∣shops (such a one as no age had ever seen,) from all parts of the Roman World, in Nicaea a City of Eithynia. Of this Greatest and most celebrated Council, Our Eusebius was not the least part. For he had both the first place in the right-handaSide, and also in the name of the whole Synod made a Speech to the Emperour Constantine, who sate on a Golden Chair in the midst between the two Rows of those who sate together [in the Coun∣cil;] as he himself attests in the Preface to his first b Book concerning the Life of Constantine, and in his c Third Book of the same work. The same is likewise confirmed by Sozomen, in the First d Book of his Ecclesiastick History. Far∣ther, when there was a great contest amongst the Bishops concerning aeDraught of the Creed, Our Eusebius proposed a Draught that was exactly true and plain, and which was commended by the consent of all the Bishops, and of the Emperour Himself. But, in regard something seem'd to be wanting in that Draught, in order to confuting the impiety of the new Opinion; the Fathers of the Nicene Synod judged these words as necessary to be further added, Very God of Very God; begotten not made, being of One Substance with the Father. They likewise annex'd Anathema∣tisms, against those who should assert that the Son of God was made of things which are not, and that there was a time when He was not. And at first indeed Our Eusebius refused to admit of the Term Consubstantial. But afterwards, in∣formed by the other Bishops what the import and magning of that word was, he at length consented and subscrib'd to this Creed, as he himself relates in his f Letter to his Diocess of Caesarea. Some affirm, that Eusebius, forc'd by necessity, and out of a fear of the Emperour, rather than from the Sentiment of his own mind, had subscrib'd to the Nicene Creed. I might indeed be easily induc'd to believe that, concerning others who were pre∣sent at this Synod. But, I can't think so of Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea. For after the Ni∣cene Synod, Eusebius always condemned those who would assert that the Son of God was made of nothing, as 'tis plain from his Books against Marcellus, and expressly from the ninth and tenth Chapter of his First Book De Ecclesiastica Theologia. Athanasius does likewise attest the same concerning him. Who (though he has often related that Eusebius Caesariensis had subscribed to the Nicene Synod, yet) does never declare, that he did that dissemblingly and in pretence onely. Had Eusebius subscrib'd to the Nicene Council, not heartily, but by fraud and under a colour; why did he afterwards send that Letter I have mentioned, to his Diocess of Caesarea, wherein he profess'd ingen•ously, that he had embraced that Faith, which had been published in the Nicene Council? After the Nicene Synod, the A∣rians out of a fear of the Emperour, were for some little time quiet. Resuming their bold∣ness presently, after they had by subtlety crept into the Prince's favour; by all ways and arts they began to Persecute the Catholick Prelates. Their first assault was made against Eustathius Bishop of the City. Antioch, who was Eminent both for the Glory of Confession, and was also accounted the Chief amongst the Assertors of the Nicene Faith. Him therefore they accuse before the Emperour, be∣cause he maintained Sabellius's impiety, and be∣cause he had reproach't Helena Augusta the Em∣perour's Mother. A numerous Assembly of Bi∣shops is conven'd in the City Antioch, in which presided Eusebius of Nicomedia, the Chief and Ring-leader of the whole Faction. Eusebius of Caesarea was likewise present at this Synod. Eu∣stathius therefore having been accused by Cyrus Bishop of the Beroeans, because he held the im∣pious Doctrine of Sabellius, and moreover an accusation ofgincontinency having been framed against him, is thrust out of his own See. On which account a most impetuous Tumult is rais'd at Antioch; the people being divided into two Parties, some requesting Eusebius Bishop of Cae∣sarea might be put into Eustathius's place; others desiring▪ Eustathius their Bishop might be restored to them. And it had come to blows, had not a fear of the Emperour, and the Judges authority repress'd them. The Sedition being at length quieted, and Eustathius banisht, Our Eusebius (although en∣treated both by the people, and by the Bishops also that were present, to undertake the Administration of the Antiochian Church, yet) refused to do that▪ And when the Bishops by Letters written to Constantine, had acquainted Him both with their own [vote,] and with the suffrage of all the people; Eusebius wrote his Letters also to Constantine. Whereto the Emperour Constan∣tine gave answer, and highly commended Euse∣bius's resolution. Eustathius having in this man∣ner been depos'd, which was done on the year of Christ 330, as I have remark'd in: my h Anno∣tations; the Arians turn the violence of their fury upon Athanasius. And in the first place they complain of his Ordination, in the Prince's pre∣sence: then, thatihe exacted an Impost of a Linen Garment from the Provincials: that he had broken a sacred cup: lastly, that he had murdered one Arsenins a Bishop. Therefore Constantine wearied with their most troublesome complaints, indicted a Council in the City Tyre, and commanded Atha∣nasius the Bishop to repair thither, to make his defence. In that Synod, Eusebius Bishop of Cae∣sarea, amongst others, sate as Judge▪ whom Con∣stantine had a mind should be present at that Coun∣cil. Potamo Bishop of Heracleopolis (who had come thither with Athanasius the Bishop, and some Prelates of Egypt;) seeing him sitting in the Council, is said to have accosted him in these words: [Is it fit,] Eusebius, that You should sit, and that the innocent Athanasius should stand to be judg'd by You? Who can bear such things as these? Tell me, were not you in Custody with me during the time of the Persecution? And I lost an eye in defence of the Truth; but you appeared maim'd in no part of your body, nor did you undergo Mariy•dome, but are alive and whole. By what means did you escape out of Prison? Unless you promised our persecutors that you would do the k detestable thing, and perhaps you have done it. These things are in this manner related by Epi∣phanius in the Here•i• of the Meletians. From which words by the by is appears, that they are mistaken who relate, that our Eusebius had some∣time sacrificed to Idols, and that that was openly objected against him in the Tyrian Synod. For Potamo accused not Eusebius, •s if he •ad sacri∣ficed to Idols; but onely, his dismission out of Prison s•fe and whole, had given Pota••o an oc∣casion of suspecting that concerning him. Never∣theless 'tis possible, that Eusebius might have been dismist out of Prison by some other way, than that which Potamo has related. Farther, from Epi∣phanius's words it may, I think, b• gathered,Page [unnumbered]that Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea presided at this Synod. For he adds, that Eusebius being sorely vex'd at the hearing of these words, dismissed the Council. Yet from other Writers we have it for certain, that not Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, but Eusebius of Nicomedia presided at the Tyrian Synod. After the Council held at Tyre, all the Bishops who had sate together there, by the Em∣perour's Order betook themselves to Jerusalem, to celebrate the Consecration of that Great Church, which Constantine had erected in that place, in honour of Christ. There Our Eusebius grac'd the Solemnity, by several Sermons which he made in the Church. And when the Emperour by most sharp Letters had summon'd the Bishops to his own Court, that in his presence they might give an account of those things, which by fraud and out of hatred they had transacted against Atha∣nasius; Our Eusebius together with five others came to Constantinople, and certified the Prince concerning all Transactions. Then also he recited his Tricennalian Oration in the Emperour's own presence, in the Palace. Whereto the Emperour hearkened with the greatest joy imaginable, not so much in respect of his own, as God's Praises, whom Eusebius has magnified thorowout that whole Oration. This was the Second Oration that Eusebius spoke in the Palace, as he himself attests in his Fourth a Book concerning the Life of Constantine. For he had before made an Oration in the Palace concerning the Sepulchre of Our Lord: which the Emperour heard standing, nor could he ever be perswaded, though he was once and again entreated by Eusebius, to sit down in the Seat set for him; saying, 'twas fit, that Discourses concerning God should be heard by per∣sons standing; as Eusebius relates in the thirty third Chapter of the same Book. Farther, how dear and acceptable Our Eusebius was to Con∣stantine, may be known both from these matters I have mentioned, and also from many other circumstances. For he both frequently received Letters from him, which occur inserted in the foresaid Books. Nor was it seldom that he was sent for to the Palace, and entertain'd at Table, and honoured with private discourse. Moreover, Constantine related that Vision of the Cross, which he saw in the Heaven at such time as he was making his Expedition against Maxentius, to Our Euse∣bius; and shewed him the Labarum, which he had [ordered to be] made, to express the likeness of that Cross, as Eusebius himself doesbattest. And when he wantedcCopies of the Sacred Scri∣ptures for the use of those Churches which he had built at Constantinople, he committed the care and over-sight of transcribing them to Eusebius; in regard he well knew him to be most skilfull in these matters. Lastly, when Our Eusebius had Dedicated ad Book concerning the Feast of Easter to him, that Present was so acceptable to Constantine, that he ordered that Book to be forthwith translated into Latine, and by a Let∣ter written to Eusebius entreated him, that he would as soon as possible communicate the works of this nature which he was upon, to the Studious in sacred matters. About the same time Euse∣bius comprized a Description of the Jerusalem-Church, and of the sacred Gifts which had been consecrated there, in a small Book, and Dedi∣cated it to the Emperour Constantine. Which Book, together with his Tricennalian Oration, he had plac'd at the close of his Books con∣cerning the Life of Constantine. But this Book is not now extant. At the same time also Five Books were written by Eusebius against Mar∣cellus: the last three whereof De▪ Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ, he Dedicated to Flaccillus Bishop of Antioch. Now Flaccillus entred upon that Bi∣shoprick a little before the Synod of Tyre, which was conven'd in the Consulate of Constantius and Albinus, on the year of Our Lord's Nativity 335. 'Tis certain, Eusebius (in his First Book against Marcellus De Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ, Chap. 14,) writes in express words, that Mar∣cellus had been deservedly condemned by the Church. Now Marcellus was first condemned in the Constantinopolitan Synod, by those very Bi∣shops who had consecrated Constantine's Church at Jerusalem, that is on the year of Christ 335, or else 336, as Baronius will have it. Indeede Socrates acknowledges but Three Books of Eusebius's against Marcellus; those namely which are entituled De Ecclesiasticâ Theo∣logiâ: whereas nevertheless, the whole Work a∣gainst Marcellus, was by Eusebius comprized in Five Books. Farther, of all Eusebius's Books, the last seem to be those Four concerning the Life of Constantine. For they were written after the death of that Emperour, whom Eusebius did not long survive. For he dyed about the beginning of Constantius Augustus's Reign, a little before the death of Constantine Junior, which hapned when Acindynus and Proculus were Consuls, on the year of Christ 340; as may be gathered from Socrates's Second f Book. Now, what Scaliger says, in his Animadversions upon Eusebius, pag. 250 of the last Edition, that Eusebius's Books against Prophyrius were written under Constantius Son to Constantine the Great, can't so easily be admitted of by us, in regard 'tis confirmed by the Testimony of no ancient Writer. But what the same Scaliger adds in that very place, that the three last Books of The Evangelick Demonstra∣tion, the eighteenth namely, ninteenth, and twen∣tieth, were written by Eusebius against Prophy∣rius; therein he does manifestly blunder. Saint Jerome gwrites indeed, that Eusebius answered Porphyrius in three Volumes, that is, in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth; who in the twelfth and thirteenth of those Books which he published against the Christians, had at∣tempted to confute the Book of the Prophet Daniel. But Saint Jerome does not mean Eu∣sebius's Books concerning Evangelick Demon∣stration, as Scaliger thought, but the Books he wrote against Porphyrius; which had this Title,〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 [Books] of Confutation and Apology, as may be gathered from Photius's Bibliotheca. Farther, I am of O∣pinion, that these Books were written by Eusebius after his Ecclesiastick History. And this I con∣jecture from hence, because Our Eusebius in the Sixth h Book of his Ecclesiastick History, where he produces a famous passage out of Porphyrius's Third Book against the Christians, makes no men∣tion of those Books wherein he had answered Porphyrius: whenas nevertheless, he is wont to be a diligent Quoter of his own works, and does frequently referre the Studious to the reading of them. But because a fit opportunity presents it self, I have a mind to make some few Remarks here concerning his Books of Ecclesiastick Hi∣story. For on their account chiefly, all this Labour hath been undertaken by us. Indeed, much hath been written by Our Eusebius for the profit and advantage of the Catholick Church, and in confirmation of the truth of the Chri∣stian faith; partly against the Jews, and partlyPage [unnumbered]against the Heathens. Nevertheless amongst all his Books, his Ecclesiastick History does deser∣vedly bear away the Bell. For, before Eusebius, many persons had written Books in defence of the Christian Faith, and by most cogent Reasons had confuted the Jews Contumacy, and the Errour of the Heathens. But there was no person before Eusebius, who would deliver to posterity an Hi∣story of Ecclesiastick Affairs. On which ac∣count Our Eusebius is the more to be commended, who was both the first that found out this Subject; and also, after he had attempted it, left it en∣tire and perfect in every respect. 'Tis certain, although many have been found after him, who, incited by his example, have undertaken to com∣mit to writing Ecclesiastick matters; yet they have all begun their History from those times wherein Our Eusebius had closed his Work: but the History of the foregoing times, which he had set forth in Ten Books, they have left to him entire and untoucht. Wherefore, should any one have a mind to term him the Father and Foun∣der of Ecclesiastick History, truly that person would seem to give him this surname not absurdly nor without cause. Now, what way Eusebius applied himself to this Subject, 'tis not hard to conjecture. For, whereas in the last part of his Chronical Canons, he had accurately noted the Time of Our Lords Coming, and of his pas∣sion; the names also of the Bishops who had sate in the four chief Churches, and of the famous men who had flourished in the Church; and lastly, in their own time and order had digested the Heresies and Persecutions wherewith the Church had been disquieted; He was led by the hand as 'twere, by little and little to the writing an Ec∣clesiastick History; that he might handle those matters more largely and copiously in his Eccle∣siastick History, which in his Chronical Canons he had comprized in a Summary as 'twere. In∣deed he himself, in thea Preface to his Eccle∣siastick History, does plainly shew that which I have said. Where also he requests, that Pardon may be granted him by candid Readers, if perad∣venture he shall not so largely and copiously pursue and finish this Subject: for [he says,] that he was the first person who applied himself to this sort of writing, and first began to walk in a way which had not before been worn by any one's footsteps. But this may seem to some persons, not so much an excuse and desire of Pardon, as an endeavour to procure praise and glory. Farther, notwithstanding it appears evident from Euse∣bius's own Testimony, that he wrote his Eccle∣siastick History after his Chronological Ca∣nons; yet 'tis strange that Both those Works proceed to one and the same Limit, namely to Constantine's twentieth year, which was the year of Christ 325. That moreover may deservedly be wondred at, that although the Nicene Synod was celebrated on Constantine's b Vicennalia, yet no mention is made of it, either in his Chroni∣con, or Ecclesiastick History. For, whereas in his Latine Chronicon, at the Fifteenth year of Constantine, these words occur; Alexandrinae Ecclesiae 19. ordinatur Episcopus Alexander; &c: Alexander is ordained the nineteenth Bishop of the Alexandrian Church; by whom Arius the Presbyter being ejected out of that Church, joyns many to his own impiety. To confute the perfidiousness of which persons, a Synod of 318 Bishops being conven'd at Nicaea a City of Bithynia, ruin'd all the subtil devices of the Hereticks by the opposition of [the term] HOMOOUSIOS▪ 'tis plain enough, that those words were not written by Eusebius, but were added by Saint Jerome, who interpolated Eusebius's Chronicon, by inserting many pas∣sages on his own head. For, to •m•t that, ••me∣ly that the mention of the Nicene Synod is here set in a forreign and disagreeable place; who can ever believe, that Eusebius would have spoken in this manner concerning Ari••, or would have inserted the Term HOMOOUSIOS into his own Chronicon? Which word always displeased him, as we shall see afterwards. How should Eusebius say, that there were three hun∣dred and eighteen Bishops present at the Nicene Synod? when in his Third c Book concerning the Life of Constantine, he writes in most express words, that something more than two hundred and fifty sate in that Synod. Yet I don't doubt, but the Ecclesiastick History was finished by Eu∣sebius some years after the Nicene Synod. But, whereas Eusebius had resolved to close his Hi∣story, with that Peace which after Diocletian's Persecution shone from heaven upon the Church, as he himself attests in the beginning of his work; he designedly avoided mentioning the Nicene Synod, least he should be compell'd to set forth the strifes and broils of the Bishops quarrelling one with another. For Writers of Histories ought chiefly to take care of and provide for this, that they may conclude their work with an illu∣strious and glorious close, as Dionysius Hali∣carnassensis has long since told us in his com∣parison of Herodotus and Thucydides. Now, what more illustrious Event could be wish'd for by Eusebius, than that Repose which by Constan∣tine had been restored to the Christians after a most bloudy Persecution; when, the Persecutour• being every where extinct, and last of all Li∣cinius taken off, no fear of past mischiefs was now left remaining? With this Peace▪ therefore Eusebius chose to close his History, rather than with the mention of the Nicene Synod. For in that Sy∣nod the Divisions seem'd not so much composed, as renewed. And that, not by the fault of the Synod it self; but by their pertinacious obstinacy who refused to acquiesce in the most whole some deter∣minations of the Sacred Council. And Let thus much suffice to have been said by us in reference to the Life and Writing• of Eusebius.
It remains, that we speak something concerning his Faith and Orthodoxy. And in the first place I would have the Readers know, that they are not to expect here from us a defence of Eulebius. For it belongs not to us todpronounce concerning matters of this nature, in regard in these things we ought rather to follow the Judgement of the Church, and the Opinion of the Ancient Fathers. Wherefore we will set down some Heads onely here, whereon relying as on some firm foundations, we may be able to determine with more of certainly concerning Eusebius's faith. Whereas therefore the Opinions of the Ancients in reference to our Eusebius are various; and some have thought, that he was a Catholick; others, an Heretick; otherse〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is a person of a doubt∣full and wavering faith; we must enquire, to which opinion chiefly we ought to assent. 'Tis a constant Rule of the Law, in doubtfull matters the more favourable and milder opinion ought to be embrac'd. Besides, whereas all the Westerns, Saint Jerome onely excepted, have entertained honourable sentiments concerning our Eusebius; and whereas the Gallican Church hath enroll'd him amongst the number of Saints, as mayPage [unnumbered]be gathered from Victorius Aquitanus, a Usuar∣dus, and others; without question 'tis better, that we should subscribe to the Judgment of our Fathers, than to that of the Eastern Schismaticks. Lastly, whose authority ought to be greater in this matter, than that of the Bishops of Rome? But Gelasius in his Book De Duabus Naturis, has recounted Our Eusebius amongst the Catho∣lick Writers, and has recited two authorities out of his Books. Moreover, Pope Pelagius bterms him the most honourable amongst Historians, and pronounces him free from all Spot of Heresie, not∣withstanding he had highly commended heretical Origen. But some body will say, that the Judg∣ment of the Easterns is rather to be followed, in regard the Easterns were better able to know Eu∣sebius, as being a man of their own language. But it may be answered, that there are not wanting some amongst the Easterns, who have thought well of Our Eusebius. Amongst whom isc Socrates, andd Gelasius Cyzicenus. But, if the judgment of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod be opposed a∣gainst us, Our answer is in readiness. For, Eusebius's Faith was not the subject of that Synod's debate, but the worship of Images. In order to the overthrowing whereof, when the Ad∣versaries, a little before conven'd in the Imperial City, had produc'd an Evidence out of Eusebius's Letter to Constantia, and laid the greatest stress thereon; the Fathers of the Seventh Synod, that they might lessen the authority of this Evidence, cryed out, that Eusebius was an Arian. But they did this by the by onely, from the occasion and hatred of that Letter; not designedly, or after a cognizance of the Cause. They do indeed produce some passages out of Eusebius, whereby they would prove, that he adher'd to the Arian Opinion. But they make no difference between Eusebius's Books before the Nicene Council, and those he wrote after that Council: which nevertheless ought by all means to be done, to the end a certain and just sentence might be pronounc'd concerning Eusebius's faith▪ For, whatever he wrote before the Nicene Synod, ought not be objected and charg'd as a fault upon Eusebius. Farther, Eusebius's Letter to A∣lexander, wherein he intercedes with him for Arius, was doubtless written before the Nicene Synod. Therefore, that Testimony of the Fa∣thers of the Seventh Synod against Eusebius, although it has the greatest autority, yet seems to us a rash judgment, before the matter was heard, rather than a Synodal Sentence. But the Greeks may have leave to think thus con∣cerning our Eusebius, and to call him a Bor∣derer upon the Arian Heresie, or even an Arian. But who can with patience bear Saint Jerome, who not content to term him Heretick and A∣rian, does frequently stile him a Ring-leader of the Arians? Can he be justly termed a Ring∣leader of the Arians, who after the Nicene Synod always condemned the Opinion of the Arians? Let his Books De Ecclesiasticâ Theo∣logiâ be perused, which he wrote against Mar∣cellus long after the Nicene Council. We shall find what I have said, that they were condemn'd by him, who would affirm, that the Son of God was made of things which are not, and that there was a time when He was not. Athanasius does likewise attest the same thing concerning Eusebius, in his Letter about the Decrees of the Nicene Synod, in these words.〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, &c. And truly he was unhappy in that: For, to the end he might clear himself, he in future accused the Arians, be∣cause, when they would maintain that the Son [of God] existed not before▪ He was be∣gotten, by this means they might deny Him to have existed before His incarnation. And this is the Testimony which Athanasius gives Eusebius, who bore Eusebius a private grudge. But St Jerome who had no reasons of hatred against Euse∣bius, yea who had profited so much from his writings; who had rendred his Chronical Ca∣non, and his Book De Locis Hebraïcis into Latine; yet brands Eusebius with this reproach, which even his most malicious Enemies never sastned on him. The reason of which thing I am not able to find out, unless it be, that Saint Jerome, having conceived an hatred a∣gainst Origen, beyond measure persecuted all the defenders of his Opinions, and especially Our Eusebius. It must indeed be confest, that Our Eusebius (although he can't deservedly be termed a Ring-leader of the Arians, yet) after the Nicene Synod was perpetually conversant with the Chiefs of the Arians, and together with them opposed the Catholick Bishops, Eustathius namely and Athanasius, the principal Main∣tainers of HOMOOUSIOS. That also seems worthy of reprehension in Eusebius, that although he always asserted the E∣ternity of the Son of God against the A∣rians, yet never heartily approved of the word HOMOOUSIOS. 'Tis certain, he has never made use of that term, either in his Books against Marcellus, or in his Orations concerning the faith against Sabellius. Yea, in his Second Book against Sabellius, he does plainly intimate, that that word, in regard it occurs not in the Scriptures, is displeasing to him. For thus he says. Sicut ergo de his quae possunt quaeri, inertium est non quaerere: &c. As therefore concerning those matters which may be search'd into, 'tis sluggishness not to enquire: so, in reference to them which there is no neces∣sity of searching into, 'tis boldness to en∣quire. What things then ought to be search'd into? Those which we find recorded in the Scriptures. But, what we don't find in the Scriptures, let us not search after. For, were it behoveable that they should be known to us, doubtless the Holy Spirit would have plac'd them in the Scriptures. And a little after he has these words. Let us not in such a manner expose our selves to danger, but let us speak safely. But if any thing be written, let it not be blotted out. And in the end of his Oration he expresses himself in this manner. Speak what is written, and the controversie will be ended. In which words Eusebius no doubt touches upon the term HOMOOUSIOS. But now, if you please, let us hear the Testimonies of the Ancients concerning Eusebius. Wherein this is chiefly to be remark'd, although the Judgments of men concerning our Eusebius have been various, in reference to the purity of the Ecclesiastick Opinions; yet all do unanimously give him the commendation of most profound Learning. One onely person, Joseph Scaliger, has lived in our Fathers memory, who, hurried on with a rash boldness and lust of reproaching, has en∣deavoured to deprive Eusebius of this Glory of his Learning, which even his Adversaries never envied him. Hisdwords, if any one be desirous of knowing them, we have plac'd amongst the Testimonies of the Ancients; notPage [unnumbered]that we have any great value for his judg∣ment, in this particular especially; but with this design rather, that his unreasonable de∣traction might be exposed to publick view. Who having resolved to write Comments on Eusebius's Chronical Canon, in the very en∣trance of that work reproves Saint Jerome, because he hath termed Eusebius a most Lear∣ned man. And at first I had indeed deter∣mined, to have reasoned at large against Scaliger, and to have confuted his Opinion by a more copious answer. But in regard that matter requires a greater Leisure, and would peradventure be tedious to the Readers, it will be more opportunely deferred to another time.