1

was most probably confined to chronology; and the Clementine Recognitions belong rather to the class of apocryphal writings which we owe for the most part to the perverse industry of the early heretics, than to authentic history.

The instances, therefore, supplied by the first three centuries can scarcely be regarded as invalidating the claim of EUSEBIUS of Cæsarea to be

οὕτω σφοδρῶς ἡ τοῦ καθ ̓ ἡμῶν τότε διωγμοῦ κίνησις, τὰς τῶν πολλῶν ἀνετεταράχει διανοίας. Euseb. Ηist. Eccles. lib. vi. cap. 7. p. 264. This brief notice is followed by Jerome, (de Script. Eccles. cap. 52.) and Nicephorus Callisti. Eccles. Hist. lib. iv. cap. 35. tom. i. Ρ. 335.

'It may seem to be unnecessary to allude to this work at all. I do so merely because it appears to be referred to by Sozomen in the following passage of the prooemium to his Eccles. Hist. *Αλλοι ταύτης ἐπειράθησαν μέχρι τῶν κατ' αὐτοὺς χρόνων, Κλήμης τε καὶ Ἡγήσιππος, ἄνδρες σοφώτατοι, τῇ τῶν ̓Αποστόλων διαδοχῇ παρακολουθήσαντες, καὶ ̓Αφρικανὸς ὁ συγγραφεύς, καὶ Εὐσέβιος ὁ ἐπίκλην Παμφίλου. p. 9. Upon which Valesius observes: Sozomenus hoc loco agit de his scriptoribus, qui res in exordio Ecclesiæ gestas commemorarunt, inter quos primum omnium recenset Clementem. Romanum igitur intelligit, qui libros Recognitionum scripsit, quos a Rufino translatos habemus. ad loc.

2 It is thus stated by himself: 'Αναγκαιότατα δέ μοι πονεῖσθαι τὴν ὑπόθεσιν ἡγοῦμαι, ὅτι μηδένα πω εἰς δεῦρο τῶν ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων διέγνων περὶ τοῦτο τῆς γραφῆς σπουδὴν πεποιημένον

τὸ μέρος. Hist. Eccles. lib. i. cap. 1. p. 3. And Nicephorus

Callisti, in his Ecclesiastical History, says of him; Πρῶτος οὗτος τῇ μετὰ χεῖρας ὑποθέσει ἐπέβαλεν ἐκκλησιαστικὴν ἱστορίαν πρῶτος ὀνομάσας τὴν βίβλον. Lib. vi. cap. 37. p. 436. We may therefore allow with Fabricius: Quanquam vero Hegesippus,

considered as the father of Ecclesiastical history. This learned and industrious writer, who, according to the conjecture of Cave, was born in 270, and who appears to have written the work for which he is most distinguished in 324', was, in various ways, eminently qualified to be the historian of the early Church. His friendship with the learned and accomplished Pamphilus, his residence at Cæsarea, which possessed a library rich in the works of the Christian writers; his extensive and intimate acquaintance with profane learning, an inquisitive mind, and the free access which by the favour of his sovereign he enjoyed to the public archives of the empire, all conspired to fit him to undertake the office which he assumed, and to discharge its duties to the advantage of mankind. The very peculia

2

3

et Africanus, quodam modo Eusebio præiverant, Papias quoque et Justinus ac Clemens Alexandrinus, Irenæus, aliique varia in scriptis suis annotaverant, quæ ad historiam Ecclesiæ et hæresium facerent, justum tamen Ecclesiasticæ historiæ corpus nemo ante Eusebium condidit, unde merito ait, se πpwrоv τn vπоОéσει éπißñoa, primum aggressum esse hoc argumentum. Bibl. Græc. vol. vi. p. 59.

1 The common opinion is that it was written in 326, the year after the council of Nice. The most powerful advocate of the date which I have adopted is Hankius (De Byzantinarum Rerum Scriptoribus, pp. 101-113). The objections to the early date are capable of being answered: but the absence of every thing like allusion to the Arian controversy forms an objection to the later date which really appears insuperable.

rities of his character, which led him to perform a part in active life which it is not easy to justify or excuse, tended, perhaps, to render him a more satisfactory historian. The impartiality which some have affected, and others have despised, was natural to Eusebius. He seems to have been one of those, and they are a numerous class, who can never make up their minds strongly enough on any subject to be partial. He was too amiable to be willing to compromise himself with either of the two great parties of his time. He was too much engrossed by his own pursuits, and, in fact, too little interested about the matters in dispute, boldly to take a side. Though his connections, and perhaps his inclinations, drew him towards the Arians, he appears to have been as little disposed to join them in their excesses when they were in power, as he was reluctant to persecute them when they were in adversity. His conduct only resolved the enigma of his principles; for the modern controversies1 respecting his opinions seem merely to have determined that he did not altogether belong to the heretics or to the orthodox.

Eusebius undertook the work of recording the early fortunes of the Church, just at the time when it could not be neglected in safety. We have, probably, no great cause to regret that it was not attempted before; but we have undoubtedly great

' Walchii Bibliotheca Patristica, edit. Danz. p. 48.

reason to rejoice that it was delayed no longer. The conversion of Constantine at once placed Christianity in a completely new position; and in a surprisingly short space of time, every thing relating to it was regarded with different views and feelings. Among other changes, the altered state of things led to such a rapid development of the spirit of speculation, that the Church could no longer transmit or teach the truth in the way she had done. It was now to be defended, and illustrated, and explained. It became matter of system and theory, and was discoursed of by men who, for genius, and eloquence, and learning, would well bear comparison with the brightest ornaments of classical antiquity. No one educated under these new circumstances of Christianity could have been a fit historian of the early Church. But Eusebius had grown up under a different discipline. By birth and education he belonged to the third century. He had studied when there was nothing to study but what led him to antiquity. Accordingly, his learning was of an antiquarian rather than of a doctrinal character,—it was historical, not theoretical or dogmatical. His taste was formed before the passion for a scientific treatment of theology had shown itself in the Church. His pursuits and acquire

1 It may be added, that many of the documents which were extant at the beginning of the fourth century soon perished. They would naturally disappear when no interest was felt about them.

ments, therefore, fitted him for the work which he happily undertook, as much as his impartiality: and the way in which he executed it, has entitled him to everlasting gratitude.

We cannot be too thankful that Eusebius anticipated, by a happy instinct, the subjects which would be most interesting to posterity in the first regular work on Church-history'. He made it his chief business to trace the succession of the bishops of the principal sees, to point out the literary exertions of the Christian writers, to describe the rise and progress of heresies, and to record the successes and persecutions of the Church 2. His object seems to have been twofold, namely, to show the providential nature of the triumph which the Gospel obtained over its external and internal enemies, and to vindicate its professors from the charge of illiterate ignorance. He well knew what is required of the historian. He had recourse to

1 Ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Ἱστορίας Βίβλια δέκα. First edited with the other Greek Ecclesiastical historians, Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen, and Evagrius, by Robert Stephens, Paris, 1544. But the earlier editions (Fabr. Bibl. Græc. vi. 60, et seq.) were completely superseded by that of Henri Valois, which was first printed at Paris in 1659-1673, and with improvements in 1677. There have been four or five reprints; of which the Cambridge (Reading's) is the most convenient and most elegant. These are all in folio. More recently Eusebius has been edited in 8vo. by Stroth (Hal. 1779), Zimmermann (Francof. ad M. 1822) and Heinichen (Lips. 1827-30).