A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

EUSEBIUS of Caesarea.

EUSEBIUS Surnam'd Pamphilus a 1.1, was Born in Palaestine b 1.2, towards the latter end of the Reign of Galienus c 1.3. He was ordain'd Priest by Agapins Bishop of Caesarea in Palaestine, * 1.4 and settled a Famous School in that City. When the Persecution of Dioclesian arose, he ex∣horted the Christians of Caesarea to Suffer with Courage for the Faith of Jesus Christ, and more particularly assisted his dear Friend Pamphilus, who suffer'd Martyrdom after two Years Imprisonment. Some have accus'd him of offering Incense to Idols during this Persecution, to release himself out of Prison d 1.5; but this Accusation is groundless, and 'tis much more probable, that he con∣tinued

alway stedfast in the Faith of Jesus Christ e 1.6 Immediately after this Persecution was ended, Eusebius was chosen Bishop of Caesarea in the room of Agapius f 1.7, in the Year 313, or 314, from the Birth of Christ: And from that time he was much engag'd in the Controversy of Arius, a Presbyter of Alexandria, whom he, (as well as some other Bishops of Palaestine) at first protected, thinking that he was unjustly persecuted by Alexander of Alexandria, his Bishop. He did not only write to this Bishop in favour of Arius; but finding he could not prevail to restore him, he permitted him and his Followers to keep their Places, and to hold the ordinary Assemblies of the Faithful in their Churches, upon condition that they should submit to their Bishop, and earnestly desire to be re-united to his Communion.

It appears by a Letter of Eusebius to Alexander, which is produced in the Second Council of Nice, that he did verily think that Arius, and those of his Party, acknowledg'd the Eternity of the Word, and that he believ'd the contrary. Doctrine was falsly charg'd upon them, which may in some measure ex∣cuse his Proceedings in this Affair: For as soon as Arius did clearly discover his impious Sentiments in the Council of Nice; Eusebius, with all the other Bishops, condemn'd them and propos'd a very Orthodox Confession of Faith. But because it seem'd not to renounce the Heresie of Arius formally ••nough, therefore the Fathers of the Council added to it the word Consubstantial, together with Ana∣thematisms against the Errors of Arius. This new term Consubstantial, gave some trouble to Eusebius, and he refus'd at first to assent to it; but being afterwards fully satisfy'd of its true meaning, he made no scruple of Subscribing to it, and of Signing the Confession of Faith made by the Council of Nice, which he was never known afterwards openly to violate, though he always maintain'd an intimate Correspondence with the Bishops of Arius's Party. He was present with them at the Council of An∣tioch, held in the Year 330, wherein they unjustly depos'd Eustathius, then Bishop of Antioch. But, if he was to be blam'd for consenting to that unjust Deprivation of a Bishop who was his Enemy; yet it must be acknowledg'd that he deserves great Commendation for refusing to Succeed him in his See: For being Elected both by the Bishops and the People, in order to his Ordination to the Bishoprick of Antioch, after the Deposing of Eustathius, he did absolutely refuse it; and when the Bishops wrote about it to the Emperour Constantine, that he would oblige Eusebius to agree to this Election, he wrote to him himself, humbly praying that he might have leave to refuse this Bishoprick; which at last the Emperour granted, and greatly commended his Moderation. Nevertheless, Eusebius continued always to take part with Eusebius of Nicomedia, and assisted at the Council of Tyre, held against St. Athana∣sius, in the Year 335, and also at the Assembly of Bishops, which was held at Jerusalem at the time of the Dedication of the Church of that City: And, in fine, he was sent in the Name of those Bishops to the Emperour Constantine, to justify what they had done against St. Athanasius. Then it was that he spoke a Panegyrick in honour of the Emperour, at a time of publick Rejoicing for beginning the 30th. Year of his Reign, which was the last of his Life: And Eusebius himself did not long survive this Em∣perour, whom he mightily lov'd and honour'd, for he also died about the Year 338.

He has written many very Learned Books. The First were his Five Books of Apology for Origen, which he compos'd with the Holy Martyr Pamphilus, during the Persecution of Dioclesian; and to which he only added a Sixth, after the Death of this Martyr. About the same time he wrote a Trea∣tise against Hierocles, who had written two Books against the Christian Religion. After he was chosen Bishop of Caesarea, he compos'd his Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation, and Twenty Books of Evangelical Demonstration g 1.8: After this he wrote a Chronicle from the Beginning of the World down to the 20th. Year of Constantine the Great. After this Chronicle follow'd his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story h 1.9, divided into Ten Books, which seems to have been finish'd some time after the Council of Nice, though it reaches no further than the 20th. Year of Constantine. About the Year 332, he compos'd a Cycle for Easter, at the desire of the Emperour, to whom he dedicated it, and caus'd some very fair Copies of the Holy Scriptures to be written out, as he himself tells us in the Fourth Book of the Life of Constantine, Chap. 34, and 35. St. Jerom and Bede make mention of this Paschal Cycle of Euse∣bius, compos'd, as they say, in imitation of that of Hippolytus. His Books against Marcellus of Ancyra were written after the first Condemnation of that Heretick in the Council of Constantinople, held in the

Year 335, or 336 i 1.10. In short, the Four Books of the Life of Constantine, were compos'd after the Death of that Emperor, to which he has added three Tracts, viz. The Harangue which he made at the Dedication of the Church of Jerusalem, The Discourse of Constantine to the Convention of the Saints, and a Panegyrick in Praise of this Emperor.

Besides these Works, whose Chronology is known, he hath also written, as St. Jerom testifies, Five Books of the Theophany, or the Incarnation, Ten Books of Commentaries upon Isaiah, Thirty Books against Porphyrie, Ten whereof were lost in St. Jerom's time; and a Book of Topography; which is the same that St. Jerom translated and entituled, a Book of the Country of the Hebrews, which was afterwards Publish'd in Greek by Bonfrerius in the Year 1631. There is mention made in this Book of two other Tracts of the same Nature, whereof one contains an Explication of the Names which the Hebrews give to other Nations, and the other was a Topographical Description of the Holy Land and the Temple. St. Jerom also places in the Catalogue of Eusebius's Works, Three Books of the Life of Pamphilus, some little Tracts upon the Martyrs k 1.11, the Commentaries upon the 150. Psalms, translated afterwards by Eusebius of Verceilles, and the Rules for reconciling the Four Evangelists, to∣gether with a Letter to Carpianus. He mentions also, in an Epistle to Pammachius, Eusebius's Com∣mentary upon the First Epistle to the Corinthians; and he testifieth in another place, that he caus'd to be Publish'd an Edition of the Version of the Septuagint, taken from the Hexapla of Origen. St. Basil cites a Treatise of Eusebius concerning the Polygamy of the Patriarchs, of which Eusebius himself speaks, Book I. Chap. 9. of the Demonstration, and Book VII. Ch. 3. and 7, of the Preparation. In fine, Theodoret tells us, that Eusebius wrote Eclogues upon the whole Scriptures: But we must not forget the Letter which he wrote to the Caesareans mention'd by Theodoret in his History, nor those Letters to Alexander and Euobration concerning Arius, which are cited in the Second Council of Nice, Act. 5. & 6. To thèse we may add, the Letter to the Empress Constantia, which is quoted by the Bishops that condemn'd Images, whereof there is a Testimony related in the same Council, Act 6. Photius mentions a Book of Eusebius entituled, Apology and Refutation, that is to say, An Apology for the Religion of Christ, and a Refutation of the Errors of the Gentiles, divided into two Books; and also of two other Books, which were, as he says, very little different from the two former. The Com∣mentary upon the Canticles, publish'd by Meursius, is falsly ascribed to Eusebius, since in it are cited the Testimonies of Authors much later than Eusebius, such as Gregory Nyssen, Philo Carpathius, and many others. It is not certain, that Eusebius was the Author of that little Tract of the Life of the Prophets, publish'd in Greek before Procopius, by Curterius, from a Manuscript of the Cardinal of Rochefoucauld, and printed at Paris in the Year 1580, though it appears to be ancient. To conclude, There are some Treatises or Discourses publish'd by Sirmondus, which are believed to be a Translation from the Greek of Eusebius of Caesarea: But though these Treatises, which seem indeed to be tran∣slated from the Greek, were compos'd by some ancient Author, and have something of the Air and Genius of Eusebius's Writings, neither do they contain any thing unworthy of him; yet there is no full assurance that they are his, because they are not mention'd by any of the Ancients, and we cannot now judge with any certainty from a Version, of the Stile of Eusebius.

After we have given a Catalogue of all the Writings of Eusebius, whereof we have any Testimony, we must now Discourse more largely of those that are come to our Hands. His Ecclesiastical History is the most considerable of all his Books, which is a Collection of all the Memorable Things which happen'd in the Church from the Birth of Jesus Christ to his own time. He has exactly noted the Succession of Bishops to the Sees of all the Great Cities in the World; he has given an Account of Ec∣clesiastical Writers and their Books, together with the History of Heresies, and some Remarks con∣cerning the Jews. He has described the Persecutions of the Martyrs, the Controversies and Disputes touching Ecclesiastical Discipline; and, in a Word, all things which concern the Affairs of the Church. He Writes nothing of History as from himself, but almost every where, in his Works, he cites the ancient Authors or their Monuments, from whence he had his Relations, and inserts long Extracts taken out of them, as Men usually do when they write Annals or Memoirs. This manner of writing History, is less agreeable indeed, but much more profitable than any other, and gains Credit and Weight to that which is related: For when a Writer reports the Transactions of Ancient Times with∣out citing the Authors from whence he had them, he cannot so easily gain Credit with his Readers, as when he cites his Vouchers, and produces their Testimonies for the Truth of what he says, since those Relations must certainly be agreeable to Truth, which are founded on the Authority of un∣questionable Witnesses. But besides this general Reason, there is also a particular one, why this way of writing History, which is followed by Eusebius, is of wonderful Advantage unto us; which is this, That for the most part, those Authors and their Works which were more ancient than Eusebius, have been loft since his Death by the injury of time; and therefore we are mightily oblig'd to him who hath preserved in his History, not only the Memory of those Authors, but some considerable Frag∣ments of their Works. In short, without the History of Eusebius, we should scarce have any Know∣ledge, not only of the History of those first Ages of the Church, but even of the Authors that wrote

at that time, and their Works, since no other Writer but he, has given an Account of those things. For it is observable that the Historians who followed after him, as Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, begun t•…•… History where he ended his, either because they thought that he had Collected in his all that was Remarkable of those first Ages, or because they had no other way of coming to the Knowledge of them but by him. Nicephorus Callistus, who pretended to write a New History in the Fourteenth Century, has mixt in it a great many fabulous and uncertain Tales, because they were not taken out of Eusebius, nor confirm'd by the Authority of any Ancient Author. Nevertheless, it must be con∣fess'd, That even the History of Eusebius is not altogether so perfect as were to be wish'd, for it is not written smoothly, neither is it always exact l 1.12. Our Author does often enlarge too much upon those things that ought to be slightly pass'd over; and on the contrary, sometimes he expresses such things very succinctly, which deserve a much larger Account. But notwithstanding these Faults, it is a most Excellent History, and highly to be priz'd.

There is at the End of the Eighth Book, a small Tract of the Martyrs of Palaestine, in which he describes the Martyrdom of those that suffered in this Province for the Faith of Jesus Christ. Some have confounded this with the Eighth Book, but against Reason; for it is a distinct Tract, and, as it were, a Supplement to it.

Ruffinus is the first who Translated this History of Eusebius, but he, according to his usual manner, took a great liberty in doing it. He has past over the whole Tenth Book, and has added to it two more which contain the following History down to the Death of Theodosins. His Translation is clean, neat, and elegant enough, it gives the Sence and Thought of the Author in a very agreeable Stile, and sometimes more faithfully than those Interpreters who have Translated him since. This Version has been the great Magazine to all the Latin Authors, who have drawn from thence whatever they either wrote or understood of the Ecclesiastical History of the First Ages.

Musculus the Protestant, undertook a new Translation of the History of Eusebius, which he per∣form'd happily enough. He ties himself up very much to the Letter, and has Translated the Text with much politeness and brevity: But he does not always understand his Author aright, and so he has committed many Faults in his Version. The Translation of Christophorson is more Elegant, and his Stile more Ciceronian, but it is too Copious for an Historian, whose Stile should be concise and close. He hath Corrected many Faults of Musculus, and yet his own Version is not altogether free.

The Learned Henricus Valesius having observ'd the Faults of all former Versions, undertook to make a new one, more perfect. He publish'd it with the Greek Text, Revis'd by Four Manuscripts, and added to it most learned Notes. His Version deserves Universal Applause, and the singular esteem of all Learned Men, for it has two qualities that rarely meet together, being both Elegant and Literal; And yet the Criticks have observ'd some Faults in it: But it is impossible to satisfie all Men, and very difficult to avoid all Mistakes, in a Work of so great a length.

It was very fit that the History of Eusebius should be Translated, that those who neither understand Greek nor Latin might not be depriv'd of the History of the Church in its Original Purity. The President Cousin has done the Publick this Service, who has Translated this History into French, with as great Purity as Faithfulness, and has prefix'd to his Version a Preface wherein he briefly takes notice of the principal Errors of Eusebius, and passes a very sound and solid Judgment upon his History and his Person.

The Chronicle of Eusebius, or the Abridgment of the Universal History of all Times and Places from the Beginning of the World down to his own time, was divided into Two Parts: The First was entituled, Canons of Universal History, or Universal Chronography; and the Second, Chronical Canons. In the first, he has collected the Origin and History of all Nations severally, the Succession of all Kings and Princes of the World, of the High Priests of the Jews, and the Bishops of the Chief Churches from the Birth of Jesus Christ. In the second, he has enlarg'd and digested these Histories according to the order of Time. St. Jerom has translated both Parts m 1.13: But there was nothing remaining of the Translation of the First, but some Extracts containing the Names of Kings, which are Printed with the Version of the Second Part. This Translation of St. Jerom, which was thus Printed at Basle, was

afterwards Publish'd more exactly by Arnaud de Pontac, Bishop of Bazas, in the Year 1605. But none took care to Collect the Greek Fragments of the Original of Eusebius, before the famous Joseph Scaliger, who Publish'd them in the Year 1606, in a Book entituled, The Treasure of Time; wherein he gives a larger Version of the First Part of the Chronicle than any other Edition, and renders the Version of the Second Part more Correct and Exact; to which he adds many very considerable Greek Fragments, taken out of some later Greek Authors.

This Book of Eusebius is a Work of Prodigious Study, and most Accomplish'd Learning: For he must have read an infinite number of Books and Ancient Monuments, to compose such an Universal History; and at the same time he must have a well-poiz'd Judgment, to collect so many Particulars, and relate every one of them in their proper time. This infinite Labour, is an evident Proof, that Eusebius was a Man of vast Reading and a Prodigious Memory: Nevertheless, it must be confess'd, that the Chronicle of Africanus was a great help to him, and that he took almost all his Chronicle, from Africanus's Chronicon, which he had Copied. He corrected indeed some of the Faults which he found in him, but then he himself committed many more n 1.14: And indeed it is next to impossible, to avoid all Errors in so long and knotty a Work as an Universal Chronicle. These Faults are pardonable in a Book of this Nature, and do not hinder, but that it ought to be esteemed one of the most useful Books of all Antiquity.

The Four Books of the Life of Constantine, are, properly speaking, a Panegyrick; in which, he gives an Account as an Orator, rather than as an Historian; not only of the Life of this Emperour, but also of the Revolutions of the Empire, and the Affairs of the Church, in which Constantine had a hand. The Stile of this Work is more Sublime and Florid than that of the other Books of Eusebius, and yet it is not finer, nor more agreeable. He does nothing for the most part, but give slight hints of the Re∣lations which he has given at large elsewhere, and deliver the Heads of them, leaving out the Circum∣stances and Particulars.

He has added at the End of those Four Books, Constantine's Oration to the Convention of the Saints, i. e. to the Christians, and a Harangue in Praise of this Emperor, which he spoke before him at the Festival Solemnity of the 30th. Year of his Reign. In this Piece he enlarges upon the Praises of God, the Wonders of his Providence, the Mystery of the Incarnation, the Benefits of Jesus Christ to Mankind, more than upon the Commendation of the Emperor, which he intermixes only now and then; for he praises him as a Christian Prince ought to be prais'd; that is to say, by publishing those Vertues which have a relation to Piety and Religion. This Discourse is the most Eloquent of all his Works, and is compos'd with much Art and Fineness.

The Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation, address'd to Theodorus, (who is believ'd to have been Bishop of Laodicea, and is mention'd in the 32th. Chapter of the Seventh Book of his Ecclesiastick History) were written on purpose to dispose the Minds of Men to embrace the Christian Religion. In them Eusebius shows, that the Theology of the Pagans was ridiculous, and contrary to good Sence; and that the Christian Theology was Holy and Reasonable. The First Part of this Proposition, he proves in the First Six Books, and the Second Part in the other Nine. He begins with a General De∣scription of the Doctrine of Christ, and to render it the more enticing, he gives an account of the in∣effable Blessings it has reveal'd to Mankind, and how it conduces to Piety, by teaching them to know and honour one God. After this, he alledges some Prejudices in favour of the Christian Religion, such as the Accomplishment of Prophecies, the Holiness of the Lives of Christians, and the wonderful faci∣lity, with all Persons, even those that were more dull and barbarous, found in comprehending the greatest and sublimest Truths. After he has thus dispos'd his Readers to be favourable to the Christian Religion, he destroys the Religions of all the Nations of the World, and lays open the Falshood of every one of them in particular, not only as to what concerns their History, but as to their pretended Mysteries and Prophane Morality. In the Fourth Book, he confutes the strongest Argument of the Pagans, taken from the Predictions of their Oracles. He shows, that the Gods whom they worship'd, were Evil Spirits, call'd Daemons, as the Philosophers themselves have acknowledg'd In the Sixth Book he opposes Destiny or Fatal Necessity, and proves there by many Reasons and Testimonies, that Man is entirely a free Agent.

In the following Nine Books, he shews that the Christians had reason to embrace the Theology of the Hebrews, because none but that affords solid Foundations for a Sincere Piety, together with Sound and true Doctrine. This he proves by a particular Induction of their Opinions, because there is no Theology but this which teaches the Immortality of the Soul, which commands Men to Adore one God only; which informs them, that he was the Creator of the World, which teaches them that the Word is the Son of God, and that the Holy Ghost is to be Worship'd with the same Worship that is due to the Father and the Son; There is no other Religion but this, which teaches Men, that they must not Adore the Angels as Gods, but honour them as the Ministers of God; which gives a rational Account of the Fall of some of the Angels, and instructs Man, that he is made after the Image of God: In a word, there is none but this whose Doctrine is agreeable to Right Reason. After this, he subjoins a long Fragment out of a Treatise of Maximus, which demonstrates that Matter is not Eternal.

In the Eighth Book he gives the History of the Version of the Septuagint, and to prove the Autho∣rity of the Holy Scriptures, he makes it appear by the Testimony of the Jews, that their Law is My∣stical and very Significant, which he afterwards represents as worthy of all Esteem, by the holiness of

their Lives who have embrac'd it, by the Example of the Essenes, whose manner of Life he describes, and by the Wisdom of Philo.

In the Ninth Book, he relates the Testimonies of the Pagans, who have spoken in favour of the Jewish Religion, and of those who allow the Truth of Moses's History. In the 10th he shows, that Plato and the Pagan Philosophers have taken the greatest part of what they have written, from the Books of Moses. In the 11th. Book he demonstrates particularly, that the Doctrine of Plato is agree∣able to that of Moses, and compares many of the Opinions of that Philosopher with those of the Jews. He carries on that Comparison in the 12th. and 13th. Books. But in the mean time, he demonstrates, that this Philosopher had his Errors, and that no Book but the Scriptures is wholly free. In the 14th. and 15th. Books, he relates the Opinions of the Philosophers, he shows their Contradictions, and of∣tentimes confutes one of them by another: From all which he concludes, that the Christians had rea∣son to forsake the Religion of the Pagans, and embrace that of the Jews.

After he has thus prepar'd the Minds of Men to receive the Christian Religion, by establishing the Authority of the Religion, and of the Books of the Jews, he demonstrates the Truth of it against the Jews themselves by their own Prophecies. This is the Subject of his Books of Evangelical Demonstra∣tion, of which there are only Ten remaining of Twenty which he compos'd. In the First Book he shows, that the Law of the Jews was calculated for one Nation only, but the New Testament was design'd for all Mankind, That the Patriarchs had no other Religion but that of the Christians, since they ador'd the same God and the same Word, honour'd him as they do, and resembled their holy Lives. In the Second Book he shows by the Prophecies, that the Messias was to come into the World for all Mankind. In the Third he makes it appear in favour of the Faithful, that Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the World, and demonstrates against the Infidels that he was no Seducer, as his Doctrine, his Miracles, and many other Reasons do evidently prove.

In the Fourth Book he shows, that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and gives an Account of the Reasons for which he was made Man; he explains the Name of Christ, and cites many Prophecies wherein he was foretold by that Name. In the following Books he brings abundance of Prophecies to demonstrate that the Coming of Jesus Christ, the time of his Birth, the Circumstances of his Li•••• and Passion, and in a word, all things that concern'd him, were foretold in the Books of the Old Te∣stament. What we have of these Books, ends with the last words of Christ upon the Cross; And in the following Books he recited the Prophecies concerning his Death, his Burial, his Resurrection, his Ascension, the Establishment of the Church, and the Conversion of the Gentiles: But these are wholly lost.

These Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration, are the largest Work that has been made by any of the Ancients upon this Subject, where a Man may find more Proofs, Testimonies and Arguments for the Truth of the Christian Religion, than in any other. They are very proper to in∣struct and convince all those that sincerely search after Truth. In fine, Eusebius has omit∣ted nothing which might serve to undeceive Men of a false Religion, or convince them of the true.

The Treatise against Hierocles, was written against a Book of that Philosopher, publish'd by him under the Name of Philalethes, against the Christian Religion; wherein, to render it ridiculous, he has compar'd Apollonius Tyanaeus with Jesus Christ, and says, That Apollonius wrought Miracles as well as Christ, and ascended into Heaven as well as he. But Eusebius has prov'd in his Answer, That Apol∣lonius Tyanaeus was so far from being comparable to Jesus Christ, that he did not deserve to be rank'd among the Philosophers, and that Philostratus who wrote his Life is an Author unworthy of Credit, because he contradicts himself very often, he doubts himself of those very Miracles which he relates, and he reports many things which are plainly Fabulous. At the End of this Treatise Eusebius has given some Observations against Fatal Necessity.

In the First of the Five Books against Marcellus of Ancyra, Eusebius endeavours to prove, That this Bishop wrote his Book upon no other Motive, but the hatred of his Brethren; he charges him with Ignorance of the Holy Scriptures, and rallies him for the impertinent Explications of some Greek Proverbs brought in not at all to the purpose. In fine, he blames him for accusing Origen, Paulinus, Narcis∣sus, Eusebius of Nicodemia, and Asterius, of Error touching the Mystery of the Trinity, and endea∣vours to justifie their Doctrine about it. In the Second Book, he discovers the Errors of Marcellus, and proves from many Passages of his Book, That he believes the Word was not a Person subsisting before he was born of the Virgin, That he denies the distinction of the Son from the Father, That he is positive in asserting the Flesh and not the Word to be the Image of God, the Son of God, the King, the Saviour, and the Christ; and in short, That he durst affirm that this Flesh shall be destroyed, and annihilated after the Day of Judgment.

After he has discovered the Errors and the Malice of Marcellus of Ancyra, he confutes his Opi∣nions in the Three following Books, Entitled, Ecclefiastick Theology, and Dedicated to Flacillus Bi∣shop of Antioch.

In the First Book he proposes the Faith of the Church which he explains very exactly, rejecting the Errors of the Ebionites, Paulianites, Sabellians and Arians. After this, he shows that Marcellus is guilty of the Sabellian Heresy, and proves by Thirty Arguments drawn from Scripture, That the Word is a Person subsisting of himself. In the Second and Third Books, he goes on to confute the Consequences of Marcellus's Error, and the Arguments which he alledges for it, and proves by many Passages of the Old and New Testament, that the Word is a Subsistence, or a Person-Subsisting di∣stinguish'd from the Person of the Father.

From these Books we may learn the true Opinion of Eusebius concerning the Divinity of the Word. He has declar'd in many places, That the Word is God, and the Son of God; and he says plainly, That he was not made of nothing, nor created in * 1.15 time; but begotten from all Eternity of the Substance of the Father. He does expresly reject the Error of those that say, The Word was made of Nothing, and so place him in the number of Creatures. But he seems to insinuate in some places, and chiefly B. II. Ch. 7. That the Person of the Son is not equal to the Per∣son of the Father, and that the same Adoration is not due to him o 1.16. And it is not only in these Books that he speaks after this manner; for he does the like in all his other Writ∣ings; wherein he rejects the impious Opinion of those that say, The Son * 1.17 was made of nothing, That he is not of the Substance of the Father, That there was a time when he was not: But then at the same time he seems to admit some inequality between the Father and the Son, and to acknowledge some sort of Dependance upon, and Inferiority of the Son to the Father. For this reason it was that he made no scruple to declare in the Council of Nice, That the Son was God from all Eternity: where he also plainly disavow'd the Impiety of Arius, who says, That he was made of nothing, That there was a time when he was not: Yet he found some difficulty to approve the term Consubstantial, that is, to confess, That the Son is of the same Substance with the Father; and after he had consented to it by his Signing, he gave such a Sence of the Word in a Letter which he wrote to his Church, as does not at all Confirm the Equality of the Father and the Son: His Words are these, When it is said, That the Son is Consubstantial with the Fa∣ther, the meaning is only. That the Son of God has no resemblance to any Creature that was made by him, but a perfect resemblance to the Father by whom he was begotten, and not by any other Subsistence or Substance. This plainly shews, That Eusebius did not approve this term, as it establishes a perfect equality between the Father and the Son p 1.18, but only as it signifies the resemblance of the Son to the Father, and that the Son was begotten of the Father. It may be said to excuse Eusebius, That he did not admit this Inequality between the Father and the Son for any other reason, but because the Son receiv'd his Substance from the Father: But he does every where make use of such Emphatical Expres∣sions to denote this Inequality, that it is difficult to explain them in this Sence, especially since he wrote his Books against Marcellus, wherein he speaks after the same manner, at a time when this Question was debated and even determined: For those Expressions which might be innocent in former times, ought to be suspected after the Decision of the Council of Nice. We might further add the Cor∣respondence which he maintain'd with the Bishops of Arius's Faction, the Praises which he always gave them, his affected Silence in his History, as to what concerns the Council of Nice, and the disad∣vantageous Way that he speaks of it in his Books of the Life of Constantine. But though Eusebius's Doctrine could be justified as to the Divinity of the Son, yet it will be much harder to Defend what he says of the Holy Spirit; for he asserts, not only in his Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demon∣stration, but also in his Third Book of Ecclesiastick Theology, That he is not truly God: The Holy Spirit, says he, is neither God, nor the Son of God, because he does not derive his Original from the Fa∣ther, as the Son does, being of the number of those things which were made by the Son. What we have hitherto said concerning the Opinion of Eusebius about the Trinity, does plainly demonstrate on the one side, That Socrates, Sozomen, and some late Authors, are to blame, who do wholly excuse him; and on the other side, That it is a great piece of Injustice to call him Arian, and the very Head of the Arians, as St. Jerom has done, whom many others have follow'd, since he formerly reje∣cted the principal Errors of Arius, which are, That the Word was made of nothing, That he is not of the Substance of the Father, That he is unlike the Father, and, That there was a time when he was not.

His Sentiments about the other Articles of the Christian Religion, appear to be very Orthodox: He explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a most Catholick manner q 1.19, acknowledging in Jesus Christ

two Natures united in one and the same Person, and yet distinguish'd by * 1.20 their Properties. His Discourse is very sound as to the causes of Christs coming, and his Death, and the Merits of his Sacrifice which he offered upon the Cross to make satisfaction for Mankind, where he saith, that his Divinity suffered not, but only his Humanity.

He Discourseth often of the good Offices of the Angels to Men, and of the Worship that's due to them; he gives an Account of the fall of the Evil * 1.21 Angels, and demonstrates that the Ancient Patriarchs had some knowledge of Jesus Christ, and that they were saved by the Merits of his Death. He attributes much to the Free-will of Man. He praises the State of Virginity as more perfect, and the Celibacy of Priests, without blaming Marriage. He acknowledges, that the Monuments of the Saints, have a just Right to be Honour'd. He Discourses of the Oblation of the Body and Blood of Christ, of which he saith, The Bread offered by Melchisedech, was a Figure. In fine, He approves the Prayers of the Church for the Dead. Photius, Epist. 144. accuses him of denying with Origen the General Resurrection, and at the same time takes Notice, that many have not observ'd this Error in his Writings, and that it is not to be discover'd there but by a careful Examination of them. But, however it may be in other Books, there is not the least footstep of it in those that are now extant.

St. Jerom maintains in his Book against Ruffinus, That Eusebius alone was the Author of the Six Books of Apology for Origen, which have been ascribed to Pamphilus: But it appears by the Testimony of Eusebius himself, B. VI. of his History, Ch. 33. and also by that of Photius, That he compos'd the 1st. Five Books, together with Pamphilus, and added the 6th. after his Martyrdom. We have the Translation of the 1st. of those Books, which he begins with an Invective against those that accuse the Person and Doctrine of Origen; and then he produces many Passages out of his Works to justifie him, concerning the Trinity and the Incarnation, the Pains of the Damn'd, and concerning the Nature and State of Souls. St. Jerom accuses Ruffinus of having changed those places in his Version, which seem'd to favour the Error of the Arians, about the Divinity of the Son and the Holy Ghost: Ruffinus does not deny the Charge, but only pretends that those Passages had been added. Some Books of this Apology contain'd the Life of Origen, and a Catalogue of his Writings, as appears by the Testimony of St. Jerom, and the Report of Photius, Vol. 118. of his Bibliotheque.

The Book of Topography, or the Names that the Hebrews give to several Countries, translated by St. Jerom, and lately publish'd in Greek, is a Geographical Explication of all the Countries, Cities and Places, which are mention'd in the Books of the Old Testament. This Treatise is very Exact and Cu∣rious, and shews that Eusebius was an able Man in every thing.

The Harmony of the Evangelists, or the Rules for Reconciling them, contains Ten Tables, in each of which, he has mark'd by Arithmetical Figures, with wonderful Art, what is related by 4, by 3, by 2, or by 1 Evangelist only: So that in reading the New Testament, where the Figures of those Tables are mark'd in the Margin, one may presently know, by having recourse to that Table, not only by how many, and by which of the Evangelists, but also in what places it has been related. He com∣pos'd these Rules according to the Harmony of Ammonius, to which they were instead of a Table, as he himself observes in his Letter to Carpianus at the beginning of them.

We have a Latin Fragment yet extant, of the Harmony of the Evangelists, upon the Subject of their apparent contradictions about the time of the Resurrection of Christ, translated by the Monk Ambrosius, which is believ'd to be Eusebius's.

It's said, There are some Greek Commentaries of Eusebius's upon Isaiah, mentioned by Heinsius. St. Jerom in his Epistle to Pammachius, speaks of Eusebius's Commentaries upon the Epistle to the Corinthians. Theodoret in the First Book of his History, Ch. 16, says, That he made Abridgments of the Scripture. 'Tis reported that in the Library of Florence, there are some Manuscript Commentaries upon the Psalms, which are ascribed to Eusebius; and Gelasius in his Book of the Two Natures, cites a Passage of Eusebius taken out of those Commentaries. I don't mention the Commentaries upon the Canticles, publish'd by Meursius under Eusebius's Name, because they are none of his, but compos'd by a much later Author, as we have already prov'd.

The Treatise of the Lives of the Prophets, is a short Abridgment of their Lives, and of the most Re∣markable Things that are in their Prophecies.

The Tracts or Discourses publish'd in Latin by Sirmondus, have much of the Air of Eusebius; whereof the two first were written against the Heresy of Sabellius, to refute that Error, and prove by the Scriptures, that the Word is a Person distinct from the Father, and there he occasionally Discourses against Marcellus of Ancyra, whom he calls the Galatian. In the following Discourse he Treats of the Resurrection, and having establish'd the Providence and Justice of God by sensible Proofs, he thence concludes. That there is a Resurrection; because if there were no other Recompense but in this Life, it would follow, that God were unjust, seeing good Men are oftentimes depriv'd of all the Ad∣vantages of this Life, which wicked Men most commonly enjoy. He shews by the Resolution that appear'd in Abraham, when he went to Sacrifice his Son, and by all the Circumstances of that Action which he describes very eloquently; he shews, I say, That this Patriarch must needs believe a future Resurrection, for otherwise he would never have attempted with so much Confidence and Zeal, to Sa∣crifice that which was dearest to him in this World. He confutes the Opinion of the Pharisees, who held that Men are raised again from the dead to eat and drink, and enjoy the same Pleasures which they •…•…d in this Life.

The Fourth Tract, is a Discourse upon the Day of the Ascension of Jesus Christ, wherein he proves the Truth of his Resurrection and Ascension, by the Constancy of the Martyrs and Apostles, and by the wonderful Promulgation of the Gospel. He observes how impossible it was, that ever the Apostles should undertake to Preach the Christian Religion, and succeed in their Attempt, if God had not en∣courag'd them by his Spirit, and dispos'd the Hearts of Men to receive their Doctrine. In this Dis∣course, he describes also the Martyrdom of St. Romanus Deacon of Antioch. In the Six following Tracts, he discourses of things Spiritual and Invisible; and, in the First, he shows, That God is Incor∣poreal and Invisible, and demonstrates, that things Incorporeal and Invisible, are infinitely more Ex∣cellent than those that are Material and Earthly. In the Second and Third, he proves, That the Soul of Man is Immortal and Spiritual, and describes the great Advantages it gives a Man above the Beasts. The Fourth Tract is, concerning the Thought of Man, which has these Remarkable Properties; First, That it knows it self; and, Secondly, That it resists and checks the Motions of Lust. In the Fifth, He goes on still to prove, That God is Invisible and Incorporeal, and takes Notice as he goes along, That Angels are Spiritual. In the Sixth, He answer some Passages of Scripture which seem to attribute Mem∣bers to God.

The following Discourse is, concerning the Advantages of the Incarnation of Jesus Christ, and the great Benefits it hath procur'd to Mankind. There he explains that saying of our Saviour, I came not to bring Peace, but War; by shewing, That Jesus Christ, came indeed, to bring Peace; but Men being unwilling to receive it, there must be War, by necessary consequence, as arising only from the bad Disposi∣tion of their own Hearts. Towards the end of this Discourse, he praises those that suffer for the Re∣ligion of Jesus Christ, and continues the same Subject in the following Discourse, wherein he shews upon occasion of those Words of our Saviour, Preach ye upon the House-tops what has been said to you in secret. That nothing can dispense with a Christian's suffering for the Religion of Christ. He adds, That tho' there be no Persecution, yet we are oblig'd to suffer, and to be, as one may say, con∣tinually Martyrs, because we are always to fight against the World and our selves. The Two last Dis∣courses are concerning good Works; in the First of which, he recommends it to Christians, if they would be happy, to follow after that which is Good, and shun that which is Evil. And in the Second, he exhorts them to the practice of good Works, and chiefly to giving of Alms. This is the Subject of those Discourses, which are more concerning Doctrines than Morality, wherein there appears a great deal of Wit, good Sence, and Eloquence, but little of Order and Method.

Eusebius was one of the most Learned Men of all Antiquity, as both his Friends and Enemies do equally acknowledge r 1.22; of whom it may be said without fear of mistaking, That there was no Man of so great Reading and Learning amongst all our Greek Authors. Almost all his Books are the effects of prodigious Labour, and very long and laborious Enquiries. And yet it must be confessed, that he had great Helps by the Memoirs of those who had written before him upon the same Subjects, whose Works he makes no scruple to Transcribe. He did not much Study to polish his Discourses, which is the common Fault of almost all those that make Knowledge and Learning their chief Business. His Stile is neither Elegant nor Grateful, as Photius has many times observed, but dry and barren, and ex∣tremely unpleasant. He is very proper to teach those who apply their minds seriously to Study and search after Truth, and love to consider it absolutely naked, despoil'd of all the Ornaments of Lan∣guage; but he is not at all proper to entice those who are taken with the manner of Expressing things, and the force of Eloquence. I shall not here add any thing to what I have said concerning his Learning: But as to what concerns his Person, he seems to have been very impartial, very sincere, and a great Lover of Peace, Truth and Religion. For altho' he maintain'd an intimate Correspondence with the Enemies of St. Athanasius, it does not appear that he was his Enemy, nor that he sided much with any Party in the Controversy of the Bishops of that time. He was present, indeed, in the Councils, wherein unjust things were done to Eustathius and St. Athanasius; but it does not appear, that he gave any Signs of an angry Temper, nor that he serv'd the Passions of other Men. He was not the Author of New Confessions of Faith, neither did he carry on any Plot, to the Destruction of St. Atha∣nasius, or the Ruin of his Party; but he only desir'd to accommodate Differences, and reconcile the two Parties. He did not abuse the Credit which he had with the Emperor, to Advance himself, nor to Destroy his Enemies, as Eusebius of Nicomedia did; but he only made use of it for the Welfare and Advantage of the Church. I do not doubt, but so many good Qualities obtain'd him a place among

the Saints in the Martyrologies of Usuardus and Ado and some other Ancient Officers of the Church of France s 1.23; for tho I must confess the kept not peaceable Possession of this Honour of Saintship, yet in my mind it would be a rash Censure to judge him altogether unworthy of it.

Since the Works of Eusebius have been printed severally, we will now give an Account of the several Editions of every one of them.

There were but two Greek Editions of his Ecclesiastical History before that of Valesius. The First was only Greek printed by Robert Stephen, in the Year 1544.

The Second was Greek with the Version of Christopherson, on the other side, printed at Geneva, in the Year 1612.

The Version of this Ecclesiastical History, made by Russians, was printed at Rome, in the Year 1476, in Folio, and in the Year 1479, at M••••••ua, and at Haguenam in the Year 1500.

There was an old Edition printed without date at Paris, in 8vo. by Re••aut, and publish'd by the Cane of Godfrey ••oussard, Dr. of the Faculty of Paris, who has put an Elegant and Sensible Preface before it, address'd to Stephen Po••cher, then President of the Parliament of Paris. He observes in this Preface, That the History of Eusebius, translated by Ruffinus, had been already printed. There have been since that time, several Editions of the same Version of that History in several places, in the Years 1544, and 1528, and at Lyons, in 1523, and with all Eusebius's Works in 1542, and 1559, and at Paris in 1541.

The Version of Musculus was printed at Basil, in 1554.

The Version of Christophorson, [Bishop of Chichester in England.] was printed at Cologne and Basil. in 1570, at Paris, in 1571, and with the Amendments of Suffridus, in 1581.

At last, the Version of Valesius was printed with the Greek on one side, revis'd by Four Manuscripts, at Paris, by Vitré, in the Year 1659, together with the Critical Notes of that Learned Man; to which he has added Four Treatises or Dissertations: The First concerning the Schism of the Donatists, where he has clear'd up many Points of that History, which before were very dark and confus'd and discover'd some considerable Errors, into which almost all the Historians of our time had fallen. The Second is a Letter to a Friend, where he shews, That it is the same Church at Jerusalem, which is call'd by the Name of the Resurrection, and which bears the Name of the Death of Jesus Christ. The Third, clears up some Difficulties concerning the Version of the Septuagint. And the Last, is a Critical Account of some Martyrologies. This is the Fairest and most Correct of all the late Editions in Greek and Latin; which has been since Revis'd by Petit: But this Second Edition falls much short of the Neatness of the First. The Chronicle has likewise been printed apart in 4to. in the Year 1470, and 1512, and to∣gether with the History, and the other Works of Eusebius, as has been noted above.

Monsieur de Pontac, Bishop of Bazas, publish'd it in 1605, at Bordeaux, and it has been since printed at Antwerp, in 1608.

Scaliger's Thesaurus, printed in 1606, contains the Latin Chronicle of St. Jerom, the Supplements of the two Prospers, the Chronicle of Victor, John and Idacius, of Marcellinus, of Marcellus, and an Historical Collection in Latin, extracted out of the Chronicles of Africanus and Eusebius, by an igno∣rant Man, together with the Greek Fragments of the Chronicle of Eusebius, an Abridgment of History from Adam, down to the Second Year of Heraclius, which bears the Name of the Fasti Siculi, or the Chronicon Alexandrinum, and has been since publish'd in 4to. Greek and Latin, by Raderus, in 1615. [All which Editions have been lately superseded by an Edition in Folio, printed at the Louvre by Mr. du Cauge.] After this Abridgment, follows the Chronography of the Patriarch Nicephorus, and an Epitome or Abridgment of many Histories, compos'd by way of Chronicle. After these, follows the Notes of Scaliger, and a Work, Entituled, Canon Isagogicus, or an Introduction to Chronology. There was a Second Edition of this Work, printed at Amsterdam, in 1658, wherein the Notes of Scaliger are more Large and Correct.

The Books of Eusebius concerning the Life of Constantine, have almost always been printed with his History. The Version of those Books by Fortesius was annex'd to the Version of his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story by Ruffinus.

Christophorson translated Three of those Books to add them to his History and the Fourth was finish∣ed by Suffridus. Valesius made a New Translation of them. The Oration made in the Praise of Constantine was also printed by it self in Latin at Cologne, in 1581. The Version of the Four Books of Evangelical Preparation, and of the Ten First of Evangelical Demonstration, made by Georgius Tra∣pezuntius, was printed at Venice in 1497, and at Paris in 1534; but it is very unfaithfully done, be∣cause that Author gives himself the Liberty to add to it, or take away what he pleases, in that which con∣cerns the Trinity. The Thirteen Books of Preparation, were also printed in Greek at Paris, by

Robert Stephen in the Year 1544; and the Year following, the same Printer publish'd the Ten Books of the Demonstration. Since that time, the Version of the Ten Books of the Demonstration made by Denatus of Verona, together with that of the Fourteen Books of the Preparation made by Georgius Trapezuntius, and that of the Fifteenth by Hepperus, was subjoyn'd to the Versions of the other Works of Eusebius, in the Editions which we have already mention'd.

To conclude. The Books of Evangelical Preparation and Demonstration (which deserve to be separa∣ted from the rest, since they belong to different Subjects) have been Printed in Greek at Paris in the Year 1628. in Two Volumes in Folio, with a new Version of the Fifteen Books of the Preparation, made by the Jesuit Vigerus, and Donatus's Version of the Books of the Demonstration, which Versions are plac'd over against the Greek. Moreover in this Edition was added, the Greek of Eusebius's Trea∣tise against Hiero••les, which had been already revised by Holstenius, publish'd by Morellus in 1606, together with the Ancient Translation of Acciolus, which had also been Printed apart at Cologne in 1532, with the Latin Works of Eusebius; and in short, the Five Books against Marcellus of Ancyra, with the Translation of Richard Montague, and some Notes of his added at the end, which for the most part are in favour of Marcellus, and against Eusebius.

The Book of the Holy Land has been publish'd in Greek, as we have already observ'd, by Bonfrerius the Jesuit, and printed at Paris in 1631. In 1580, Curterius put forth some Fragments concerning the Lives of the Prophets, which he has prefix'd to the Commentaries of Procopius upon Isaiah. The Notes upon the Cantioles ascrib'd to Eusebius, have also been publish'd in Greek, without a Version, by Meursius, and printed with Polychronius and Psellus in the Year 1617. The Tracts publish'd in Latin by Sirmondus were also printed at Paris in Octavo in 1643. In fine, The Letter to Carpianus, and the Evangelical Canons of Eusebius, are to be found at the beginning of some Editions of the New Testament, and in Greek at the beginning of the Greek New Testament, printed at the Louvre, by Robert Stephen in the Year 1550.

Notes

• a 1.1

  Surnam'd Pamphilus.] From the Name of the Mar∣tyr Pamphilus his Friend, and not of his Brother, as Nicephorus believ'd; for in the 7th. Book of his History, he says, That he was first acquainted with him when he was a Priest.
• b 1.2

  Palaestine.] All the Ancients call him Eusebius of Palaestine. In the First Book of the Life of Constantine, he testifies, that he had his Education in Palaestine, and in the Second Book of the same Work, after he has repeated a Law of Constantine directed to those of Pa∣laestine, he adds, This was the first Letter which Constan∣tine address'd unto us. 'Tis not known who were his Kindred. Some have thought that he was the Kinsman of Eusebius of Nicomedia, because in a Letter of Arius to this Bishop, Eusebius of Caesarea is call'd his Brother. Neither is it known who were his Masters. In the Seventh Book of his History, he says, That he hearo Dorotheus, a Priest of Antioch, expound the Scriptures; from whence Trithemius, and some others, have conclu∣ded that he was his Scholar. Acacius Successor to Eu∣sebius wrote his Life, but 'tis lost.
• c 1.3

  Towards the latter End of the Reign of Galienus.] There is some Proof of this Epocha: For in his History Book III. Ch. 28. he says, That Denys of Alexandria, who died the 12th. Year of the Reign of Galienus, liv'd in his time: And in the Fifth Book he says, That Paulus Samosatenus reviv'd the Errour of Artemon in his time; and in his Seventh Book, where he gives an Account of what was done under Galienus, he says, After we have related the Transactions of former times, we come now to those things which happened in our own time.
• * 1.4

  Eusebius of Caesarea.
• d 1.5

  Some have accus'd him of Offering Incense to Idols du∣ring this Persecution, &c.] This he was charged with by Potamon a Confessor and Bishop of Egypt, at the Synod of Tyre; for if we give Credit to St. Epiphanius, in Here∣sie 68, this Bishop perceiving Eusebius of Caesarea there present, cry'd out, O Eusebius, How come you to sit as Judge upon the innocent Athanasius? Who can endure it? Tell me, I pray you, were not we in Prison together in the time of Persecution? I lost an Eye there, for maintaining the Truth, but you have lost no Part of your Body, you have suf∣fer'd nothing: How then did you get out of Prison? Epipha∣nius adds, That Eusebius hearing this, rose up and dis∣solv'd the Assembly, saying, Seeing you charge me with things of this Nature, in a place where you are Strangers, it must be true which your Accusers say; for if you exercise such Tyranny here, much more will you do it in your own Country. This is confirm'd by the Bishops of the Council of Alex∣andria, who say in their Letter, That Eusebius of Caesarea was accus'd by the Confessors of Sacrificing to Idols. In the mean time, this Charge of Potamon is groundless: For although it were true, that Eusebius was cast into Prison for the Faith of Christ, it does not follow that he must have Sacrific'd to Idols to obtain his liberty; because he lost no Part of his Body, since he might have been de∣livered from that Persecution for many other Reasons, without losing any of his Members; and it was a rash Censure of his Neighbour in Potamon, to accuse, as he does, a Bishop of so heinous a Crime, upon so weak a Conjecture as this: But the Good-man had more Zeal than Prudence.
• e 1.6

  'Tis much more probable that he continued always sted∣fast in the Faith of Jesus Christ.] First, Because we must always think well of our Neighbour, when it does not evidently appear that he has done ill. Secondly, Be∣cause 'tis no ways probable, if he had committed such a Crime when he was Priest, that he would have been afterwards chosen Bishop of C••sarea.
• f 1.7

  In the room of Agapius.] Baronius and Blondel place Agricolaus between Agapius and Eusebius, whose Name is to be found among the Subscriptions of the Council of Ancyra. But Eusebius in his Seventh Book reckoning up the Names of those Bishops who govern'd the Church while the Persecution lasted, endeth his Catalogue of the Bishops of Caesarea with Agapius, of whom he says, that he took a great deal of pains for his Flock during that Persecution: And Eusebius himself was ordained imme∣diately after the Persecution; for he assisted in the qua∣lity of a Bishop, at the Dedication of the Church of Tyre, which was done immediately after Peace was restor'd to the Church, before Licinius had taken Arms against Con∣stantine, which happen'd in the Year 313. And therefore if there was one Agricolaus Bishop of Caesarea, he did not hold that See for any long time, for Eusebius was or∣dain'd to it in the Year 314.
• g 1.8

  After he was chosen Bishop of Caesarea, he compas'd his Fifteen Books of Evangelical Preparation, and Twenty Books of Evangelical Demonstration▪ These are cited in his Ecclesiastical History, B. I. Ch. 2. Blondel believes the contrary, that the History is cited in the Sixth Book of his Evangelical Demonstration, Ch. 23. but he was decei∣ved by the Translation.
• h 1.9

  After this Chronicle followed his Ecclesiastical Hi∣story.] He saith expresly in the beginning of his Histo∣ry, that the Chronicle was written before it, in these Words, Formerly I made an Abridgment of these things in my Chronicle, but now I will give a more ample Declara∣tion of them here in this Work.
• i 1.10

  His Books against Marcellus of Ancyr•• were written after the first Condemnation of that Heretick in the Council of Constantinople held in the Year 335, or 336.] They are Dedicated to Flacillus Bishop of Antioch, who was not chosen Bishop of that Church until the Year 335. Be∣sides, in the First Book of Ecclesiastical Theology, Ch. 14. he says, That Marcellus was condemned.
• k 1.11

  Some little Tracts upon the Martyrs.] We have one Book of these Tracts concerning the Martyrs of Palae∣stine, but it is probable that he wrote more. The Mar∣tyrology supposed to be translated by St. Jerom, has been ascribed to him, but that Work is none of his, neither is the Translation St. Jerom's.
• l 1.12

  Neither is it always Exact.] Many Faults are ob∣served in it contrary to the Truth of History, and con∣trary to Chronology. In his First Book he saith, That the Taxing which Josephus speaks of in his Eighteenth Book of the History of the Jews, is the same that St. Luke writes of. In the same Book, Ch. 9. he says, That Lysanias Tetrarch of Abylene was Brother to Philip, and Herod the younger, which is not true. In Ch. 7. he says, That Herod Junior, was banished to Vienna, contrary to the Testimony of Josephus, who assures us, Book XVIII. Ch. 9. That he was sent to Lyons. He thinks that Jesus Christ spent Four Years in his preaching. He is mistaken in the Epocha of the Voyage of St. Paul to Jerusalem. In Book XI. Ch. 13. he distinguishes Cephas who was rebuked at Antioch by St. Paul, from the Apostle St. Peter, tho' he was certainly the same. I shall not now mention his other Faults, which he committed by taking things up∣on hear-say, nor the Apochryphal Books, which he cites very often. He mistakes the Jews of Alexandria, men∣tioned by Philo, called Therapeutae, for Christians B. II. Ch. 10. he confounds Novatus and Novatianus. B. VI. Ch. 45. he makes mistakes in the years of the Pontificates of Sixtus and Eutychianus.
• m 1.13

  St. Jerom has translated both Parts.] St. Jerom in his Commentary upon Daniel, Ch. 9. saith, That there was found in the Version of the Chronicle of Eusebius an Ex∣plication of two Passages of Scripture, both which were in his First Part: Marcellinus says also plainly, That St. Jerom translated the First Part. St. Jerom in the Pre∣face to his Version says, That he translated Eusebius word for word, from the time of Abraham to the taking of Troy; and that from the taking of Troy to the time of Constantine, he had added many things of his own Head, particularly about those Matters that concern the Roman History, which Eusebius had neglected; and that he was the Author of what follows after the time of Constantine, down to the Sixth Consulship of Valens.
• n 1.14

  But then he himself committed many more Errors in Chro∣nology.] You may see them observed by Scaliger in the Prolegomena to his Treasure of Time.
• * 1.15

  B. 1. Ch. 2. B. 3. c. 7. B. 8. c. 1. B. 〈◊〉〈◊〉 c. 9, 10, 11.
• o 1.16

  He seems to insinuate in some places—That the Person of the Son is not Equal to the Person of the Father, &c.] B. I. Ch. 2. of his History, he calls the Son the Minister of the Father's Will, and the second Cause next to him. He says, That the Father Commands, and the Son Exe∣cutes, and that 'tis not possible for the Father to assume a Humane shape. In his Oration at the Dedication of the Church of Tyre, he calls the Son of God, the Second Cause of our Blessings, the Angel of his Counsel, and the Captain of the Armies of God. Yet these Expressions are more tolerable than that which is found B. V. Of Evangelical Preparation, Ch. 4. That the Son is not ado∣rable but upon the account of the Father that dwelleth in him; and Ch. VIII. That the Son is a Lord inferior to the Father. In short, what he says, B. II. Ch. 7. Of Theology, and in other places, is inexcusable, That the Glory of the Son is less than the Glory of the Father, and that the Son does not deserve Equal honour with the Father.
• * 1.17

  Hist. B. 1. c. 2. Praep. B. 4. c. 5. Dem. B. 4. c. 3. B. 5. c. 3. In an Ep. cited in the Second Council of Nice.
• p 1.18

  That Eusebius did not approve this term Consubstan∣tial, as it establishes a perfect Equality between the Father and the Son.] St. Athanasius testifies in his Treatise of Synods, and in his Book of the Decision of the Council of Nice, that he did by no means approve of the Expli∣cation that Eusebius gave of this term.
• q 1.19

  He explains the Mystery of the Incarnation in a most Catholick manner.] In a Letter to the Empress Constan∣tia, cited in the Second Council of Nice, and ascribed to Eusebius, he seems to assert, that the humane Nature was changed into the Divine, from whence some took occasion in the Council to accuse him of the Error of the Theopassians: But he teaches the contrary in the Fourth Book of his Demonstration, where he formally denies that the Divine Nature suffered. Yet in the 14th. Ch. he says, That after the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Man was swallowed up of the Divine Nature, and that the Word was become God as he was before he was Man, the Man being made God. But this is only a Figurative Expression, to denote the Glory of the Hu∣manity of Christ, for he plainly rejects this Error, in his Books of Mystick Theology against Marcellus, especially, B. III. Ch. 10, 11, &c.
• * 1.20

  Dem. B. 4. c. 2. B. 3. c. 13. Eccl. Theol. B. 1. c. 20. and 13. Dem. B. 4. c. 2. B. 3. c. 2. and 13.
• * 1.21

  Praep. B. 7. c. 6. Dem. B. 3. c. 9. Praep. B. 7. c. 6. Dem. B. 3. c. 6. Hist. B. 1. Dem. B. 1. c. 10, and 8. and B. 3. B. 1. c. 9. B. 5. c. 3. B. 4. Of the Life of Con∣stantine.
• r 1.22

  Eusebius was one of the most Learned Men of all Anti∣quity, as both his Friends and Enemies do equally acknow∣ledge.] See here a part of the Testimonies which the Ancients have given to the Learning of Eusebius. Con∣stantine in his Epistle to those of Antioch, and in a Letter which he wrote to himself, praises his vast Learning St. Basil in his Book of the H. Spirit, Ch. 29. calls him an Author worthy of Credit, because of his Universal Learning, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉. St. Jerom, tho' the great Enemy of Eusebius, could not forbear often-times to praise his Learning, to confess that he priz'd his Books, and to say in his Second Book against Ruf∣finus, That he was a most Learned Man, Vir doctissimus Eusebius; doctissimum dico, non Catholicum: The most Learn∣ed Eusebius; I call him most Learned, but not Catholick: It is not to be wondered at, that Ruffinus his Friend gives him the same Title. Antipater of Bostria, tho' he did not favour him, yet gives him the Name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, i. e. one very knowing in most Matters; and fur∣ther says of him, That he had read all the Books of the Ancients, examin'd and explain'd all their Opinions, and that he had written himself most useful Books. Philostor∣gius praises him for his History, Socrates and Sozomen vin∣dicate him, Victorius calls him a most Learned Man. Ge∣lasius the Pope durst not reject his History, because of it's great Learning, and singular usefulness for information. Pelagius assures us, That there is no History, that de∣serves greater Esteem, than that of Eusebius. Photius, who censures the Stile and Doctrine of Eusebius, ne∣vertheless, commends his Knowledge and Learning. I take no Notice of the Testimonies of Modern Au∣thors.
• s 1.23

  Obtain'd him a place among the Saints in the Martyro∣logies of Usuardus and Ado, and in some ancient Offices of the Church of France.] The Author of the Life of St. Valerian calls him, Eusebius of Holy Memory. Usuardus in June 21. calls him, St. Eusebius of Palaestine, Bishop and Confessor, an Excellent Wit and Historian. Notke∣rus in June 21, says, The Deposition of St. Eusebius in Caesarea. Manecharius in a Letter to Ceraunius Bishop of Paris, which is before the Passion of the Martyrs, Speu∣sippus, Elasippus, and Meleusippus, call him Saint. There is in a Manuscript Breviary at L••••••ges, three Lectures to his praise. In an Ancient Breviary of the same Church, printed in 1587. at June 21. there is an Oration in praise of Eusebius; and in the Missal, printed in 1484. a Mass of St. Eusebius. In an ancient Manuscript Version of Eu∣sebius's History, at the Church of Paris, the Name of Saint is given to him. Cardinal Baronius says, That all this is the mistake of some that took Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, for Eusebius of Samosata, and upon this Con∣jecture, he rases the Name of the first out of the Roman Martyrology. But Baronius affirms this without any ground, and against the express Testimonies of the Mar∣tyrologies, which do plainly mention Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, and distinguish him from all others by most evident Characters, in which no Man can be deceiv∣ed.