<GetPassage xmlns:tei="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns="http://chs.harvard.edu/xmlns/cts">
            <request>
                <requestName>GetPassage</requestName>
                <requestUrn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:E.eusebius_1</requestUrn>
            </request>
            <reply>
                <urn>urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1:E.eusebius_1</urn>
                <passage>
                    <TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0"><text xml:base="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><body xml:lang="eng" n="urn:cts:pdlrefwk:viaf88890045.003.perseus-eng1"><div type="textpart" subtype="alphabetic_letter" n="E"><div type="textpart" subtype="entry" xml:id="eusebius-bio-1" n="eusebius_1"><head><persName xml:lang="la" xml:id="tlg-2018"><surname full="yes">Euse'bius</surname></persName></head><p>(<persName xml:lang="grc"><surname full="yes">Εὐσέβιος</surname></persName>) of <hi rend="smallcaps">CAESAREIA</hi>, the father of ecclesiastical history, took the surname of
      Pamphili, to commemorate his devoted friendship for Pamphilus, bishop of Caesareia. He was
      born in Palestine about <date when-custom="264">A. D. 264</date>, towards the end of the reign of
      the Emperor Gallienus. He spent his youth in incessant study, and probably held some offices
      in the church of Caesareia. In <date when-custom="303">A. D. 303</date>, Diocletian's edict was
      issued, and the persecution of the Christians began. Pamphilus was imprisoned in 307, and was
      most affectionately attended on by Eusebius for two years, at the end of which time he
      suffered martyrdom and Eusebius fled to Tyre, where he was kindly received by the bishop
      Paulinus; but afterwards he removed to Egypt, and was imprisoned there in the course of the
      persecution. After his release he returned to Caesareia, and succeeded Agapius as bishop of
      that see about 315. He was summoned to the council of Nicaea in 327, and was there appointed
      to receive Constantine with a panegyrical oration, and to sit on his right hand. The course of
      events now made it necessary for him to form a distinct opinion on the relation of the first
      two Persons in the Trinity. There is no doubt that in many of his works, especially in those
      which he wrote before this time, but also in others, several expressions may be found
      inconsistent with each other, some of which can only be understood in a semiarian sense. Thus
      in the <title>Demonstratio Evangelica</title> he speaks of the Son as <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀφομοιώμενος τῶ Πατρὶ κατὰ παντὰ, ὃμοιος κατ̓ οὐσίαν</foreign>.
      In the <hi rend="ital">Praeparatio Evang.</hi> 4.3, he denies that the Son is like the Father
       <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἁπλῶς ἀίδιος</foreign>; for (he adds) <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁ Πατὴρ προϋπάρχει τοῦ Υἱοῦ καὶ τῆς γενέδεως αὐτοῦ προὐφέδτηκε</foreign>;
      only the Son is not created, and everything perishable must be separated from our conception
      of His nature. But with regard to all his earlier statements of doctrine, we must remember
      that till Arius's opinions, with their full bearings and consequences, were generally known,
      it was very possible for a person to use language apparently somewhat favourable to them,
      quite unintentionally, since the true fifth on the subject of our Lord's divinity had not yet
      been couched in certain formulae, of which the use after the controversy was mooted, became as
      it were the test of a man's opinions; nor had general attentio been called to the results of
      differences apparentl trifling. Eusebius's views on the subject seem to have been based on
      those of Origen, though indeed he deprecated the discussion of the question as above human
      comprehension, recommending men to be satisfied with the scriptural declaration, " So God
      loved the world, that he gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever <hi rend="ital">beliexeth
       on Him</hi> should not perish, but have everlasting life;" "not," as he argues," whosoever
      knows how He is generated from the Father." But in the <title>Ecclesiastica Theologia</title>
      (after the rise of Arianism) he declares (1.8, 9.5) against those who reckon Christ among the
       <foreign xml:lang="grc">κτίσματα</foreign>, asserting God to be the Father of Christ, but
      the Creator of all other beings. Again: in the Ecclesiastical History (10.4) he calls Him
       <foreign xml:lang="grc">αὐτοεός</foreign>, and in other places uses language which proves
      him to have fully believed in His divinity. He was, however, of course disposed to regard
      Arius with mildness, and wrote to Alexander, bishop of Alexandria, in his defence; arguing
      that though Arius had called Christ <foreign xml:lang="grc">κτίσμα Θεοῦ
       τέλειον</foreign>, He had added <foreign xml:lang="grc">ἀλλ οὐχ ὡς ἕν τῶν
       κτισμάτων</foreign>. Thus he took his seat at the council of Nicaea not indeed as a partizan
      of Arius, but as anxious to shield him from censure for opinions whose importance, either for
      good or evil, he considered exaggerated. He accordingly appeared there as head of the moderate
      section of the council, and drew up a creed which he hoped would satisfy both the extreme
      parties, of which the Arian was favoured by Eusebius, bishop of Nicomedia, and Theognis of
      Nicaea; while their opponents were led by Alexander, whose deacon Athanasius, afterwards so
      famous, accompanied him to the council, and rendered him great service. This formula, which is
      to be found in Socrates (<hi rend="ital">Hist. Eccl.</hi> 1.5), chiefly differs from the
      Nicene Creed in containing the expression <foreign xml:lang="grc">πρωτότοκος πάσης
       κτίσεως</foreign> (fromn Col. 1.15) instead of the deelaration that Christ is <hi rend="ital">of the same substance</hi> with the Father, expressed in the adjective <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁμοούσιον</foreign>; and the phrase "Very God of Very God" is not found in
      it after "God of God, Light of Light." This creed was accepted by Arius; but Alexander
      insisted on the addition of <foreign xml:lang="grc">ὁμοούσιος</foreign>, to which
      Constantine <pb n="115"/> himself was favourable, and a majority of the council decreed its
      insertion. Eusebius at first hesitated to sign it, but afterwards did so; because, as he told
      the people of Caesareia in a pastoral letter explanatory of the proceedings at the council
      (Socrat. 1.5), the emperor had assured him that by the phrase need only be understood an
      assertion that the Son of God is wholly different from every created being; and that as His
      nature is entirely spiritual, He was not born from the Father by any division, or separation,
      or other corporeal process. Eusebius, however, always retained his mild feelings on this
      subject; for he wished to reinstate Arius in his church, in opposition to Athanasius, and he
      was intimate with his namesake, the bishop of Nicomedeia, a decided Arian. Eusebius had a very
      strong feeling against pictures of our Lord, and other novelties, which were then creeping
      into the Church. When Constantia, the widow of Licinius and sister of Constantine, requested
      him to send her such a picture, he refused, and pronounced all such representations worthy
      only of heathenism. (<hi rend="ital">Vit. Const.</hi> 1. 3. p. 1069.) These pictures he
      destroyed when they came in his way, considering them inconsistent with 2 Cor. 5.10 ("Though
      we have known Christ after the flesh, yet now henceforth know we Him no more"); and he greatly
      objected (<hi rend="ital">Hist. Eccl.</hi> 7.18) to a practice prevalent at Caesareia of
      offering up figures of Christ as an act of thanksgiving for recovery from sickness. It cannot
      be denied that in some of his objections to pictures of our Lord, he appears to overlook the
      practical importance of His Incarnation to our Christian life. Eusebius remained in favour
      with the imperial family till his death. He was offered the see of Antioch on the death of
      Eustathius, but declined it, considering the practice of translations objectionable, and,
      indeed, contrary to one of the canons agreed upon at the recent council of Nicaea. For this
      moderation he was exceedingly praised by Constantine, who declared that he was universally
      considered worthy to be the bishop not of one city only, but almost of the whole world.
      (Socrat. <hi rend="ital">H. E.</hi> 1.18.) He died about <date when-custom="340">A. D. 340</date>;
      so that his birth, his elevation to high office, and his death, nearly coincide in time with
      those of his imperial patron.</p><div><head>Assessment</head><p>The character of Eusebius, and his honesty as a writer, have been made the subject of a
       fierce attack by Gibbon, who (<hi rend="ital">Decline and Fall,</hi> c. xvi.) accuses him of
       relating whatever might redound to the credit, and suppressing whatever would tend to cast
       reproach on Christianity, and represents him as little better than a dishonest sycophant,
       anxious for nothing higher than the favour of Constantine; and resumes the subject in his "
       Vindication" of the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters of the history. For the charge of
       sycophancy there is but little foundation. The joy of the Christians at Constantine's
       patronage of the true religion was so great, that he was all but deified by them both before
       and after his death; and although no doubt Niebuhr (<hi rend="ital">Lectures on Roman
        History,</hi> Lect. lxxix. ed. Schmitz) has sufficiently shewn that Constantine, at least up
       to the time of his last illness, can only be considered as a pagan; yet, considering that his
       accession not only terminanted the persecution which had raged for ten years, but even
       established Christianity as the state religion, it is not surprising that Eusebius, like
       others, should be willing to overlook his faults, and regard him as an especial favourite of
       Heaven. As to the charge of dishonesty, though we could neither expect nor wish a Christian
       to be impartial in Gibbon's sense, yet Eusebius has certainly avowed (<hi rend="ital">H.
        E.</hi> 8.2), that he omits almost all account of the wickedness and dissension s of the
       Christians, from thinking such stories less edifying than those which display the excellence
       of religion, by reflecting honour upon the martyrs. The fact that he avows this principle, at
       once diminishes our confidence in him as an historian and acquits him of the charge of
       intentional deceit, to which he would otherwise have been exposed. But besides this, Eusebius
       has written a chapter (<hi rend="ital">Praep. Evang.</hi> 12.31) bearing the monstrous
       title,--"How far it may be lawful and fitting to use falsehood as a medicine for the
       advantage of those who require such a method." Now at first sight this naturally raises in
       our minds a strong prejudice against a person who, being a Christian in profession, could
       suppose that the use of falsehood can ever be justified; and no doubt the thought was
       suggested by the pious frauds which are the shame of the early Church. But when we read the
       chapter itself, we find that the instances which Eusebius takes of the extent to which the
       principle may be carried are the cases in which God is described in the Old Testament as
       liable to human affections, as jealousy or anger, " which is done for the advantage of those
       who require such a method." From this explanation it would appear that Eusebius may have
       meant nothing more than the principle of accommodating the degree of enlightenment granted
       from time to time to the knowledge and moral state of man kind; and his only error consists
       in giving the odious name of falsehood to what is practically the most real truth. (See
       Arnold, Essay appended to Sermons, vol. ii.)</p></div><div><head>Works</head><p>The principal works of Eusebius are as follows : --</p><div><head>1. <hi rend="ital">Chronicons</hi> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">χρονικὰ παντοδαπῆς
         ἱστορίας</foreign>)</head><p>The <hi rend="ital">Chronicons</hi> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">χρονικὰ παντοδαπῆς
         ἱστορίας</foreign>), a work of great value to us in the study of ancient history. For
        some time it was only known in a fragmentary state, but was discovered entire in an Armenian
        MS. version at Constantinople, and published by Mai and Zohrab at Milan, in 1818. It is in
        two books. The first, entitled <title xml:lang="grc">χρονογραφία</title>, contains a
        sketch of the history of several ancient nations, as the Chaldaeans, Assyrians, Medes,
        Persians, Lydians, Hebrews, and Egyptians. It is chiefly taken from the <foreign xml:lang="grc">πενταβίβλιον χρονολογικὸν</foreign> of Africanus [<hi rend="smallcaps">AFRICANUS</hi>, <hi rend="smallcaps">SEX.</hi>
        <hi rend="smallcaps">JULIUS</hi>], and gives lists of kings and other magistrates, with
        short accounts of remarkable events from the creation to the time of Eusebius. The second
        book consists of synchronological tables, with similar catalogues of rulers and striking
        occurrences, from the time of Abraham to the celebration of Constantine's <hi rend="ital">Vicennalia</hi> at Nicomedeia, <date when-custom="327">A. D. 327</date>, and at Rome, <date when-custom="328">A. D. 328</date>. Eusebius's object in writing it was to give an account of
        ancient history, previous to the time of Christ, in order to establish belief in the truth
        of the Old Testament History, and to point out the superior antiquity of the Mosaic to any
        other writings. For he says that whereas different accounts had been given of the age of
        Moses, it would be found from his work that he was contemporary with Cecrops, and therefore
        not only prior to Homer, Hesiod, and the Trojan war, but also to Hercules, Musaeus, Castor,
        Pollux, Hermes. <pb n="116"/> Apollo, Zeus, and all other persons deified by the Greeks. In
        the course of the work Eusebius gives extracts from Berosus, Sanchoniathon, Polyhistor,
        Cephalion, and Manetho, which materially increase its value. Of this <hi rend="ital">Chronicon</hi> an abridgement was found by Mai in the Vatican library, at the end of a
        copy of Theodoret's <hi rend="ital">Haereticae Fabulae,</hi> also in two parts, to the
        second of which is added by the abbreviator, a list of bishops of the five patriarchal sees,
        Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Jersalem, and Constantinople, together with the bounidaries of
        these patriarchates as they existed in the ninth century.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p>The <title>Chronicons</title> has been published by <bibl>Mai, together with a commentary
          on St. Luke and twenty <hi rend="ital">Quaestiones Exangelicae,</hi> also by Eusebius, in
          the <title>Scriptorum Vaticanorum Nova Collectio,</title> Rome, 1825.</bibl> The
          <title>Quaestiones</title> are short disquisitions on certain points of the Gospel
         histories, e. g. why the evangelists give Joseph's genealogy rather than Mary's; in what
         sense our Lord is said to sit on David's throne, &amp;c.</p></div><div><head>Translations</head><p>The <title>Chronicon</title> was translated <bibl>into Latin by Jerome</bibl>, and
         published by <bibl>J. J. Scaliger, Leyden, 1606</bibl>, of which another enlarged edition
         appeared at <bibl>Amsterdam, 1658</bibl>. It was again published at <bibl>Venice, in
          Armenian, Greek, and Latin, by J. Baptist Aucher, 1818</bibl>. Mai and Zohrab's edition
         has been noticed above. The historical importance of their discovery is explained by
         Niebuhr, in his essay entitled <title>Historischer Gewinn aus der Armenischen Uebersetzung
          der Chronik des Eusebius,</title> published in his <title xml:lang="la">Kleine
          Shcriften.</title></p></div></div><div><head>2. <title xml:lang="la">Praeparatio Evangelica</title></head><p>The <title xml:lang="la">Praeparatio Evangelica</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εὐαγγελικης ἀποδείξεως προπαρασκεύη</foreign>) in fifteen books, inscribed to
        Theodotus, bishop of Laodiceia, is a collection of various facts and quotations from old
        writers, by which it was supposed that the mind would be prepared to receive the evidences
        of Christianity. This book is almost as important to us in the study of ancient philosophy,
        as the <title>Chronicon</title> is with reference to history, since in it are preserved
        specimens from the writings of almost every philosopher of any note whose works are not now
        extant.</p><div><head>Translations</head><p>It was translated into Latin by George of Trebisond, and published at Treviso, 1480.</p></div><div><head>Editions</head><p>The George translation is said to be a very bad one, and the Greek work itself first
         appeared at <bibl>Paris. 1544, edited by Robert Stephens</bibl>, and again in <bibl>1628,
          also at Paris, with a Latin version, by F. Viger, who republished his edition at Cologne,
          1688.</bibl> The <title>Praeparatio Evangelica</title> is closely connected with the
          <title xml:lang="la">Demonstratio Evangelica</title>, written soon after it.</p></div></div><div><head>3. <title xml:lang="la">Demonstratio Evangelica</title></head><p>The <title xml:lang="la">Demonstratio Evangelica</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εὐαγγελικγἠ ἀποδειξις</foreign>) in twenty books, of which ten are extant, is a
        collection of evidences, chiefly from the Old Testament, addressed principally to the Jews.
        This is the completion of the preceding work, giving the arguments which the
         <title>Praeparatio</title> was intended to make the mind ready to receive. The two together
        form a treatise on the evidences of considerable ability and immense learning.</p><div><head>Translations</head><p>The <hi rend="ital">Demonstratio</hi> was translated <bibl>into Latin by Donatus of
          Verona, and published either at Rome or Venice in 1498</bibl> and at <bibl>Cologne in
          1542</bibl>.</p></div><div><head>Editions</head><p>The Greek text appeared with that of the <title>Praeparatio,</title> at Paris, in the
         editions both of <bibl>R. Stephens</bibl> and <bibl>Viger</bibl>.</p></div></div><div><head>4. <title>Ecclesiastical History</title></head><p>The <title>Ecclesiastical History</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">ἐκκλησιαστικὴ
         ἱστορία</foreign>), in ten books. The work was finished in the lifetime of Crispus, i. e.
        before 326, whom (10.9) he commemorates as <foreign xml:lang="grc">θεοφιλέστατον καὶ
         κατὰ πάντα τοῦ πατρὸς ὅμοιον</foreign>. The history terminates with the death of
        Licinius, <date when-custom="324">A. D. 324</date>. When Constantine visited Caesareia, he offered
        to give Eusebius anything which would be beneficial to the Church there; Eusebius requested
        him to order an examination to be made of all documents connected with the history of
        martyrs, so as to get a list of the times, places, manner, and causes of their deaths, from
        the archives of the provinces. On this the history is founded; and of its general
        trustworthiness, with the limitation necessary from the principle of omission noticed above,
        there can be no doubt whatever. The first book consists of a discussion on our Lord's
        pre-existence, the prophecies respecting Him, the purpose of His revelation, and many facts
        relating to His life, together with the story of His correspondence with Abgarus or Agbarus,
        toparch of Edessa. [<hi rend="smallcaps">AGBARUS.</hi>] The second bok begins the history of
        the Church after our Lord's Ascension, with an account of the death of Pilate, the history
        of Simon Magus, St. Peter's preaching at Rome, and the various labours of other apostles and
        disciples. The rest of the work gives an account of the principal ecclesiastical writers,
        heresies, and persecutions, including the betautiful stories of the martyrs at Lyons and
        Vienne, and the death of Polycarp. Many accounts of different scenes and periods in church
        history had been written before, as by Hegesippus, Papias, Irenaeus, and Clemens of
        Alexandria; but Eusebius was the first who reduced them all into one whole, availing himself
        largely of the labours of his predecessors, but giving a unity and completeness to them
        all.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p><bibl>The History was turned into Latin by Rufinus, though with many omissions and
          interpolations, and published at Rome, 1474.</bibl><bibl>The Greek text, together with that of the histories of Socrates, Theodoret, Sozomen,
          and Evagrius, appeared at Paris, 1549, edited by R. Stephens</bibl>, and again at
          <bibl>Geneva, 1612</bibl>, with little alteration from the preceding edition. In this
         edition the text of <bibl>Eusebius was that which had been published by Valesius at Paris,
          in 1659</bibl>, with many emendations, after a careful recension of the MSS. in the
         Bibliotheque du Roi; and again at <bibl>Amsterdam, with the other historians, in
          1695</bibl>. The same histories, with the remaining fragments of Theodorus and the Arian
         Philostorgius, were published at <bibl>Cambridge in three folio volumes, 1720</bibl>. The
          <bibl>Cambridge edition was furnished with notes by W. Reading, and republished at Turin,
          1746-48.</bibl> More recent editions are <bibl>Heinichen, in three volumes, Leipzig,
          1827</bibl>, which contains the commentary of Valesius and very copious notes, and another
         at <bibl>Oxford in 1838, by Dr. Burton, regius professor of divinity in that
          University</bibl>.</p></div><div><head>Translations</head><p>The History has been translated into various languages : <bibl>into English by Parker,
          1703</bibl>, by <bibl>Cater, 1736</bibl>, and by <bibl>Dalrymple, 1778</bibl>; into
         German, <bibl><title xml:lang="de">Eusebii Kirchengeschichte aus dem Griech. und mit
           Anmeroungen erlaütert</title> von F. A. Stroth, 1778</bibl>; into Italian in the
           <bibl><title xml:lang="it">Biblioteca degli Autori volgarizzati,</title> Venice,
          1547</bibl>; and into French by <bibl>Cosin, Paris, 1675</bibl>.</p></div></div><div><head>5. <title xml:lang="la">De Martyribus Palaestinae</title></head><p><title xml:lang="la">De Martyribus Palaestinae</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ
         τῶν ἐν Παλαιστιίνη μαρτυρησάντων</foreign>), being an account of the persecutions of
        Diocletian and Maximin from <date when-custom="303">A. D. 303</date> to 310. It is in one book,
        and generally found as an appendix to the eighth of the Ecclesiastical History.</p></div><div><head>6. <title>Against Hierocles</title></head><p><title>Against Hierocles</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">πρὸς τὰ ὑπ̀ Φιλοστράτου
         εἰς Ἀπολλώνιον τὀν Τυανέα διὰ τὴν Ἱεροκλεῖ</foreign>
        <pb n="117"/>
        <foreign xml:lang="grc">παραληφθεῖσαν αν̓τοῦ τε καὶ τοῦ Χριστου
        σὑγκρισιν</foreign>). Hierocles had advised Diocletian to begin his persecution, and had
        written two books, called <foreign xml:lang="grc">λόγοι φιλαληθεῖς</foreign>, comparing
        our Lord's miracles to those of Apollonius of Tyana. (See Lactantius, <hi rend="ital">Instit.</hi> 5.2, 3, 4.) In answering this work, Eusebius reviews the life of Apollonins
        by Philostratus.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p>The <title>Against Hierocles</title> was published in Greek and Latin by F. Morell (among
         the works of Philostratus) at Paris, 1608, and with a new translation and notes by
         Olearius, Leipzig, 1709.</p></div></div><div><head>7. <title>Against Marcellus</title></head><p><title>Against Marcellus</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">κατὰ Μαρκέλλου</foreign>),
        bishop of Ancyra, in two books. Marcellus had been condemned for Sabellianism at
        Constantinople, <date when-custom="336">A. D. 336</date>, and this work was written by desire of
        the synod which passed sentence.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p>The most important edition is by <bibl>Rettberg, Götting. 1794-8</bibl>.</p></div></div><div><head>8. <title xml:lang="la">De Ecclesiastica Theologia</title></head><p><title xml:lang="la">De Ecclesiastica Theologia</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ
         τῆς ἐκκλησιαστικῆς Θεολογίας</foreign>, <foreign xml:lang="grc">τῶν πρὸς
         Μάρκελλον ἐλἐγχων Βίξλια γ́</foreign>). This is a continuation of the <title>Against
         Marcellus</title>.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p>The <title>Against Marcellus</title> and the <title xml:lang="la">De Ecclesiastica
          Theologia</title> both were edited with a Latin version and notes by <bibl>Montagu, bishop
          of Chichester</bibl>, and appended to the <bibl><title>Demonstratio Evangelica,</title>
          Paris, 1628</bibl>.</p></div></div><div><head>9. <title xml:lang="la">De Vita Constantini</title></head><p><title xml:lang="la">De Vita Constantini,</title> four books (<foreign xml:lang="grc">εἰς τὸν Βιὸν τοῦ μακαριου Κωνσταντινου Βασιλέως λόγοι τέσσαρες</foreign>), a
        panegyric rather than a biography.</p><div><head>Editions</head><p>These lives have generally been published with the <title>Ecclesiastical History</title>,
         but were edited separately by <bibl>Heinichen, 1830</bibl>.</p></div></div><div><head>10. <title xml:lang="la">Onomasticon de Locis Hebraicis</title></head><p><title xml:lang="la">Onomasticon de Locis Hebraicis</title> (<foreign xml:lang="grc">περὶ τῶν τοπικῶν ὀνομάτων ἐν τῆ θεία. γραφἧ</foreign>) a description of the
        towns and places mentioned in Holy Scripture, arranged in alphabetical order. This is
        inscribed to Paulinus, bishop of Tyre, as is also the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical
        History. It was translated into Latin by Jerome, and published at Paris with a commentary,
        by Jacques Bonpère, 1659, and again at Amsterdam, by J. Cleves, 1707.</p><p>Besides these, several epistles of Eusebius are preserved by different writers, e.g. by
        Socrates (1.8) and Theodoret (1.12); and he wrote commentaries on various parts of
        Scripture, many of which are not extant.</p></div></div><div><head>Editions</head><p>The first edition of all the works of Eusebius was published in Latin at Basle, in four
       volumes, <hi rend="ital">ex variorum inteterpretatione,</hi> 1542, which reappeared at Paris
       in a more correct form, 1580. Since that time it has been usual to edit his works separately,
       and the chief of these editions have been given with the account of each work.</p><p>(See Cave, <hi rend="ital">Script. Eccl. Hist. Lit.</hi> vol. i.; Fabric. <hi rend="ital">Bibl. Graec.</hi> vol. 7.100.4; Neander, <hi rend="ital">Kirchengeschichte,</hi> vol. ii.
       p. 787, &amp;c.; Waddington, <hi rend="ital">History of the Church,</hi> ch. vi.; Jortin, <hi rend="ital">Eccl. Hist.</hi> iii. The last two contain interesting discussions on the
       religious opinions of Eusebius.</p></div><byline>[<ref target="author.G.E.L.C">G.E.L.C</ref>]</byline></div></div></body></text></TEI>
                </passage>
            </reply>
            </GetPassage>