Who was Eusebius of Caesarea?

The necessity of dividing the sacred books into chapters or sections was early recognised. To read right through a whole book without a single break was too great a strain upon the memory; hence, in the third century, earlier attempts were set aside, and a system adopted by Ammonius, a learned Christian of Alexandria. But the Ammonian sections, as they are termed, were but partially applied, being confined to the four Gospels, or the Gospel by four, so called by Eusebius; nor was it at all a complete or satisfactory system. He divided Matthew into 355 sections; Mark into 234; Luke into 342; and John into 231. This was the fullest attempt yet made to present the contents of the Gospels in parallel order. Eusebius in the fourth century, the father of ecclesiastical history, in his Harmony of the Four Gospels, greatly improved upon the system of Ammonius. Adopting his "sections," he also added ten canons to the parallel sections of Ammonius. The improved system of paragraphing the Gospels, so as to assist in comparing the parallel portions, is very fully given in Wordsworth's Greek Testament, besides other particulars, and are spoken of as "The Eusebian Canons." Ere the century closed an unknown hand divided into sections the Epistles of Paul.

Under the heathen Emperors there were constantly provincial councils, and all was regulated within each province. When Constantine had succeeded in finally subduing the heathen Emperors, he took up the church, finding it distracted about Arianism and the time of celebrating Easter. He sent Hosius, his very particular friend, to Alexandria, the great scene of conflict, and wrote a letter to make truce between Alexander and Arius, saying they were disputing about trifles, but in vain. He then called the bishops from all parts to meet and settle the question. The ecclesiastics were not the movers in it. Constantine appointed the place of meeting, which was in his palace at Nice, and when they were assembled, came in in a splendid dress, on which Eusebius, the ecclesiastical historian, expatiates, and on his fine figure, and with great airs of modesty took his place amongst them. He over and over again says to bishops in his letters, it was his pride to be their fellow-servant, and declares that he had undertaken with all the bishops to settle the question. It has been discussed who presided. It is a vain discussion. Constantine did. He had a little modest golden seat at the top of the room, and the bishops sat on seats down the sides. The first on the right said a few words of compliment to him, how happy they were to see him there; and then he opened the session with a long speech.

The words of the inspired writer are full and distinct. From their precision one might think it impossible that any intelligent mind could fail to discern the person meant; yet no less a one than the father of ecclesiastical history contrived to misunderstand the verse, and to confound Philip the evangelist with Philip the apostle. It is no pleasure to point out a lapse so strange and unaccountable in any intelligent reader of scripture; but it becomes a duty to notice the error, and urge its importance as a warning to those who cry up the authority of ancient patristic writers. Indisputably Eusebius was neither better nor worse than most of the Christian fathers. For superstitious eyes he has the advantage of holding a decidedly early place amongst them, for he flourished in the days of the Emperor Constantine (A.D. 306-337). No ancient MS. of the Greek New Testament that survives was written before his day; and but two can pretend to be as early. Yet it is plain that, with the text as it stands before him, he grossly erred, not on a point of nice doctrine but in a plain matter of fact. For we are here in the Acts told that the Philip, with whom the apostle's party stayed, was not the evangelist only, but one of the seven, i.e., one of the seven men appointed by the apostles for diaconal service during the days of first love, soon after Pentecost.

If the unquestionable meaning of scripture could be thus overlooked, and so serious a mistake find its way into Eusebius' history, what confidence ought to be reposed in any alleged facts or statements outside the scriptures? Not that any evil object is imputed to that historian; but the circumstance proves that in those days, as in our own, there is deplorable ignorance of God's word where one might least expect it. Patristic authority in divine things is no more reliable than modern systematic divinity. The value of scripture practically as well as dogmatically is incalculable. It is the standard as well as source of truth.

Indeed, it is the prophetic character of gift which especially is in exercise for writing scripture. The apostles as such governed as well as began the church. But some were prophets who were not apostles; and the church or assembly was built on the foundation of both. This explains the true source of the authority in the holy writings of Mark and Luke. To attribute it to Peter for the one, and to Paul for the other, betrays the worthless character of early tradition, such as appears in the speculations of Eusebius of Caesarea. For whatever may be the value of his history of his own times, or of those not long before, his account of the apostolic age has more value as a contrast with the inspired record, short as this is, than as a true reflection. It even abounds with plain ignorance and error, and never rises to the spiritual bearings of what he sets before us. The inspired account in what is called "The Acts of the Apostles" is impressed with the dignity, depth, power, and design of scripture, as decidedly as any other book of the Bible. A similar remark applies to Luke's Gospel, as well as to that of Mark. They are scripture, and inspired of God, each having an aim laid bare by the contents, wholly distinct from that of Matthew and of John, yet no less certainly divine; each therefore contributing its own elements of profit proper to each, and found in none other as in them, though others furnish what is not therein. This is characteristic of inspiration, and is found nowhere but in scripture.

The condition supposed comes out clearly in such a writer of that day as Eusebius, who regarded the change brought in by Constantine as the fulfilment of the glowing vision of the Kingdom in the prophets. Thenceforth it was the church reigning on earth. They claimed the delusion of which the Corinthians were disabused. The church now taking the place of the world made it to be worldliness sanctioned in principle. So he says in his Life of Constantine (iii. 15), "It looked like the very image of the kingdom of Christ, and was altogether more like a dream than a reality." Yes, this at least is true. It was the dream of that day and since; it had no reality for the mind of Christ.

The following is Eusebius's account of the state of the Church, which had brought on the persecutions that preceded his time: rulers raging against rulers, and people in tumultuous conflict with people; lastly, when unutterable hypocrisy and dissimulation had gone on to the highest pitch, then divine judgment began, he says, measuredly, as it delights to do, and first with trial among soldiers. But when they went on then to act like atheists, and added one wickedness to another; when our most esteemed pastors, despising the bond of piety, burned in contentions one with another, increasing only in strife and threats, jealousy, enmity, and hatred, one against another; then, he says, according to the saying of Jeremiah, the full tide of trial broke in. Such was the primitive Church of the third century (Euseb. 8:1).

Eusebius, one of the early fathers, writing about A.D. 324 says, “Certainly the attestation of those I have already produced concerning our Saviour may be sufficient. However, it may not be amiss, if, over and above, we make use of Josephus the Jew, for a further witness who in the eighteenth Book of his Antiquities, when he was writing the history of what happened under Pilate, makes mention of our Saviour in these words.” (Eusebius Demonstr. Evan. Lib. III, p. 124)

Ambrose Bishop of Milan, A.D. 397 (Ambr.) Ambrosiaster, the false Ambrose, perhaps Hilary the Deacon of the third century, (Ambrst.) Ammonius of Alexandria, 220 (Ammon.) Andreas of Crete, 7th century (probably not the same person as) Andreas Bishop of Caesarea, 6th century? (And.) Arethas Bishop of Caesarea Capp. 10th century? (Areth.) Arnobius of Africa, 306 (Arnob.) Athanasius Bishop of Alexandria, 373 (Ath.) Athenagoras of Athens, 177 (Athen.) Augustine, Bishop of Hippo, 430 (Aug.) Barnabas, 1st or 2nd century? (Barn.) Basil Bishop of Caesarea, 379 (Bas.) Basil of Seleucia, fl. 440 (Bas. Sel.) Bede the Venerable, d. 735 (Bede.) Caesarius of Constantinople, 368 (Caes.) Canons Apostolic, 3rd century (Canon.) Cassiodorus, 575 (Cassiod.) Chromatius Bishop of Aquileia, 402 (Chrom.) Chrysostom Bishop of Constantinople, 407 (Chrys.) Clement Bishop of Alexandria, fl. 194 (Clem.) Clement Bishop of Rome, fl. 90 (Clem. Rom.) Constitutiones Apostolice, 3rd century (Constit.) Cosmas Indicopleustes, 535 (Cosm.) Cyprian Bishop of Carthage, 258 (Cypr.) Cyril Bishop of Alexandria, 444 (Cyr.) Cyril Bishop of Jerusalem, 386 (Cyr. Jer.) Damascenus John, 730 (Dam.) Didymus of Alexandria, 370 (Did.) Dionysius Bishop of Alexandria, 265 (Dion.) Dionysius (Pseudo-) Areopagita, 5th century (Dion Areop.) Ephraem the Syrian, 378 (Ephr.) Epiphanius Bishop of Cyprus, 403 (Epiph.) Eusebius Bishop of Caesarea, 340 (Eus.) Euthalius Bishop of Sulci? 458 (Euthal.) Euthymius Zigabenus, 1116 (Euthym.) Evagrius of Pontus, 380 (Evagr.) Fulgentius, 5th century (Fulg.) Gaudentius, 4th century (Gaud.) Gregory of Nazianzus, the Divine, Bishop of Constantinople, 389 (Naz.) Gregory Bishop of Nyssa, 396 (Nyss.) Gregory Thaumaturgus Bishop of Neocaesarea, 243 (Thauma.) Gregory the Great, Bishop of Rome, 605 (Greg.) Hieronymus (Jerome), 430 (Hier.) or (Jer.) Hilary Bishop of Poictiers, fl. 354 (Hil.) Hippolytus Bishop of Portus, fl. 220 (Hip.) Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, 107 (Ign.) Irenaeus Bishop of Lyons, 178; chiefly extant in an old Latin version (Iren.) Isidore of Pelusium, 412 (Isid.) Justin Martyr, 164 (Just.) Juvencus, 330 (Juv.) Lactantius, 306 (Lact.) Lucifer Bishop of Cagliari, 367 (Luc.) Marcion the heretic, 130? (Mcion), cited by Epiphanius (Mcion-e), and Tertullian (Mcion-t.) Maximus Taurinensis, 466 (Max. Taur.) Maximus the Confessor, 662 (Max. Conf.) Methodius, fl. 311 (Meth.) Nonnus, fl. 400 (Nonn.) Novatianus, fl. 300? (Novat.) Oecumenius Bishop of Tricca, 10th century? (Oecu.) Origen, b. 185, d. 254 (Or.) Pamphilus the Martyr, 308 (Pamph.) Peter Bishop of Alexandria, 311 (Petr.) Photius Bishop of Constantinople, 891 (Phot.) Polycarp Bishop of Smyrna, 166 (Polyc.) Primasius Bishop of Adrumetum, fl. 550 (Prim.) Prudentius 406 (Prud.) Rufinus of Aquileia, 397 (Ruf.) Severianus, a Syrian Bishop, 409 (Sevrn.) Socrates, Church Historian, fl. 440 (Soc.) Sozomen, Church Historian, 450 (Soz.) Suidas the lexicographer, 980? (Suid.) Tatian of Antioch, 172 (Tat.) Tertullian of Africa, fl. 200 (Tert.) Theodore Bishop of Mopsuestia, 428 (Thdor. Mops.) Theodoret Bishop of Cyrus or Cyrrhus in Comagene, 458 (Thdrt.) Theophilus Bishop of Antioch, 182 (Thph. Ant.) Theophylact Archbishop of Bulgaria, 1071 (Theophyl.) Tichonius? the Donatist, fl. 390 (Tich.) Titus Bp. of Bostra, fl. 370 (Titus Bost.) Victor of Antioch, 430 (Vict. Ant.) Victor Bp. of Tunis, 565 (Vict. Tun.) Victorinus Bp. of Pettau, 360 (Victorin.) Vigilius of Thapsus, 484 (Vigil.)

Amongst writers the same diversity obtains. Eusebius (AD 315-340) mentions the Acts next after the Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles are noticed before mentioning the Catholic Epistles, the order with which by our English Bible we are made familiar. On the other hand, Athanasius (AD 326-373) and Cyril (AD 349-386) give the Catholic Epistles a place next after the Acts and before the Pauline Epistles, just the order in those old uncial MSS the Alexandrian and the Vatican . But Augustine (AD 355-430) as well as Innocent of Rome (AD 402) agree in quite a different arrangement, naming the Acts after all the Epistles and just before the Revelation. [3] From this it is plain that there never was an arrangement of the books recognised as of Divine or even of canonical authority, though the Acts was unquestionably reckoned by those writers as part of the New Testament canon.

Amongst writers the same diversity obtains. Eusebius (A.D. 315 — 340) mentions the Acts next after the Gospels, and the Pauline Epistles are noticed before mentioning the Catholic Epistles, the order with which by our English Bible we are made familiar. On the other hand, Athanasius (A.D. 326 — 373) and Cyril (A.D. 349 — 386) give the Catholic Epistles a place next after the Acts and before the Pauline Epistles, just the order in those old uncial MSS. the Alexandrian and the Vatican. But Augustine (A.D. 355 — 430) as well as Innocent of Rome (A.D. 402) agree in quite a different arrangement, naming the Acts after all the Epistles and just before the Revelation. From this it is plain that there never was an arrangement of the books recognised as of Divine or even of canonical authority, though the Acts was unquestionably reckoned by those writers as part of the New Testament canon.