the most satisfactory sources of information'. He eagerly availed himself of private testimony, he diligently consulted public documents, and he estimated the value of his authorities of every kind with considerable sagacity and judgment. He did not forget that he was the historian of a sacred subject. He does not neglect to recognize from time to time the finger of God ordering and directing the various events of his narrative, nor to lead his readers to a devout acknowledgment of the Divine wisdom and mercy. His work is just the sort of history that was wanted. We may complain that it is sometimes too brief to satisfy a reasonable curiosity, that it is not well arranged, that it is not written in a pleasing or lucid style, that it is not altogether free from credulity and superstition; but we cannot complain that the author had not a right conception of what he had to do. Never was a work of the kind more abundant, in proportion to its size, in extracts and documents. 1 Much has been written in Germany within the last five-andtwenty years on the value of Eusebius as a historian. The following works are enumerated by Dr. Danz in his edition of Walch's Bibliotheca Patristica, p. 49:-Möller de Fide Eusebii in rebus Christian. enarrandis, Havn. 1813; Danz. de Eusebio Cæsar. Hist. Eccles. Scriptore ejusque Fide historica recte æstimanda, Jen. 1815; Kestner Comment. de Eusebii auctoritate et fide diplomatica, Götting. 1817; Kestner über die Einseitigkeit und Partheilichkeit des Eusebius, als Geschichtschreiber, Jen. 1819; Reuterdahl de Fontibus Hist. Eccles. Eusebii, Londini Gothor. 1826. See Appendix, Note C. He has handed down an account of the labours' of writers, of whose very names we should otherwise have been ignorant 2. In a word, he established the early Christian history upon the most satisfactory foundation; and set an example of diligence and accuracy, which have never been surpassed, and rarely equalled by his successors 3. 3 Before he commenced his Ecclesiastical History, Eusebius published his "Chronicle," and a short time before his death, which happened in the year 340, he wrote the "Life of Constantine." These are both of them important works. The former1 1 Οσα τοίνυν εἰς τὴν προκειμένην ὑπόθεσιν λυσιτελήσειν ἡγού μεθα τῶν αὐτοῖς ἐκείνοις σποράδην μνημονευθέντων ἀναλεξάμενοι, καὶ ὡς ἂν ἐκ λογικῶν λειμώνων τὰς ἐπιτηδείους αὐτῶν τῶν πάλαι συγγραφέων ἀπανθησάμενοι φωνάς, δι ̓ ὑφηγήσεως ἱστορικῆς πειρασόμεθα σωματοποιῆσαι. Lib. i. cap. i. p. 2. 2 The fragments of ancient Christian writers, which have been preserved by Eusebius, compose the most valuable part of the interesting work of Dr. Routh. A catalogue of the writers who are mentioned in the Eccles. Hist. is given by Fabricius, Bibl. Græc. vi. 63-90. 4 The original text of the Chronicon (Пavrodan iσropía) has perished. But St. Jerome's translation, with the numerous fragments preserved by the Byzantine annalists, was published by Jos. Scaliger in his Thesaurus Temporum, Lugd. Bat. 1606; Amstel. 1658. See Fabr. Bibl. Græc. vi. 33-36. Since that time the following important works have appeared :-Hieronymi de Prato Dissert. de Chronicis Libris II. ab Eusebio Cæsar. scriptis. Veron. 1750, 8vo; Eusebii Pamphili Chronicorum Canonum Libri II. Opus ex Haicano codice a Jo. Zohrabo diligenter expressum et castigatum A. Maius et Jo. Zohrabus nunc C serves to illustrate many interesting points of early Church-history; and the latter', though it must be regarded as a laboured panegyric rather than as a sober record of historical facts, affords several important documents and much valuable information relating to the most memorable event which has occurred in the history of Christianity; its public establishment as the religion of the Roman Empire. primum conjunctis curis Latinitate donatum notisque illustratum additis Græcis reliquiis ediderunt. Mediolan. 1818. 4to; Eusebii Pamphili Cæsariensis Episcopi Chronicon Bipartitum nunc primum ex Armeniaco textu in Latinum conversum adnotationibus auctum Græcis fragmentis exornatum opera Jo. Bapt. Aucher. Venet. 1818. 2 vols. 4to. 1 Εἰς τὸν βίον τοῦ μακαρίου Κωνσταντίνου βασιλέως λόγοι Téoσapes, usually appended to the Ecclesiastical History, of which it may be regarded as the supplement. Baronius happily enough compared it to the Cyropædia: (Constantini vitam,) quam scripsit imitatus in multis in ea potius Xenophontem ; qui, ut de eo testatur Cicero, vitam Cyri non tam ad historiæ fidem conscripsit, quam ad effigiem justi principis exhibendam. Annal. ad an. 324. n. 5. I.] THE FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY. 19 SECTION II. FROM THE COUNCIL OF NICE 325, to the COUNCIL OF THE FATHERS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY-ST. JEROME-RUFINUS -GELASIUS OF CESAREA-SULPICIUS SEVERUS-PAULUS OROSIUS-PHILIP OF SIDE-PHILOSTORGIUS-SOCRATES-SOZOMEN -THEODORET. THE fourth century, in many respects the most important in the history of the Church, was more an active than a literary period. It produced in abundance the subjects of history, but afforded few who had leisure or inclination to put them on record'. The age of the Arian controversy was rich in memorable events and illustrious men. But its worthies were most of them men of action, men who took part in the real business of life, who wrote not that they might occupy their leisure, but that they might contribute to the decision of a great question which affected the dearest interests of mankind. Their works were part of themselves-their acts, their doings. Their polemical and dogmatical writings, acute and subtile as they are, were com 1 The case is not by any means peculiar. Great events do not always immediately find their historian. Herodotus did not publish his work till five-and-thirty years after the battle of Salamis. And Livy did not write in the active days of Rome. posed to meet particular emergencies, not to gratify an intellectual want. It is this peculiarity which elevates them so far above mere men of letters, and gives to their stature heroic proportions in the eyes of posterity. They were, by their position and character, the subjects rather than the writers of history'. In the mean time their disciples and admirers were too much occupied with the study of their writings and the prosecution of the great controversy of the time, to find leisure for a strictly literary employ. This state of things prevailed till the beginning of the reign of Theodosius. From the time when Eusebius wrote his life of Constantine to the council of Constantinople, we find no account of any direct accession that was made to the history of the Church. When the pen of history was at length resumed, it was handled for some time almost exclusively by western writers. The " Catalogue of the Ecclesiastical Writers 2" which ST. JEROME' compiled from Eusebius, and continued to his own time by notices gleaned from other quarters, is the first 1 Several of the works of Athanasius are indeed of an historical nature, but they were all written to meet particular emergencies; none of them were written as history. 2 Liber de Scriptoribus Ecclesiasticis. In the second volume of his works. (Edit. Vallarsii.) But it is also printed in the Biblioth. Eccles. of Miræus and Fabricius. It appears from a passage in his life of Malchus, that Jerome at one time intended to write a complete history of the Church. Appendix, Note E. |