text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eusebius of Cæsarea

Eusebius of Cæsarea, Bishop of Caesarea in Palestine, the "Father of Church History"; b. about 260; d. before 341.

LIFE.—It will save lengthy digression if we at once speak of a document which will often have to be referred to on account of its biographical importance, viz., the letter written by Eusebius to his diocese in order to explain his subscription to the Creed propounded by the Council of Nicaea. After some preliminary remarks, the writer proceeds: "We first transmit to you the writing concerning the faith which was put forward by us, and then the second, which they have published after putting in additions to our expressions. Now the writing presented by us, which when read in the presence of our most religious emperor was declared to have a right and approved character was as follows: [The Faith put forward by us]. As we have received from the bishops before us both in our first catechetical instruction and when we were baptized, and as we have learned from the Divine Scriptures, and as we have believed and taught in the presbyterate and in the office of bishop itself so now likewise believing we offer to you our faith and it is thus." Then follows a formal creed [Theodoret, Hist., I, 11; Socrates, Hist., I, 8; St. Athanasius, de December Syn. Nic. (appendix) and elsewhere. Translated by Newman with notes in the Oxford Library of the Fathers (Select Treatises of St. Athanasius, p. 59) and St. Athanasius, vol. I. The translation given here is Dr. Hort's. The words in brackets are probably genuine though not given by Socrates and St. Athanasius].

Dr. Hort in 1876 ("Two Dissertations", etc., pp. 56 sqq.) pointed out that this creed was presumably that of the Church of Caesarea of which Eusebius was bishop. This view is widely accepted (cf. Lightfoot, art. "Euseb." in "Dict. of Christ. Biog."—All references to Lightfoot; unless otherwise stated, are to this article.—Sanday, "Journal of Theolog. Studies", vol. I, p. 15; Gwatkin, "Studies of Arianism", p. 42, 2nd edition; McGiffert, "Prolog. to C. H. of Euseb." in "Select Library of Nic. and post-Nic. Fathers"; Duchesne, "Hist. de l'Eglise", vol. II, p. 149). According to this view it is natural to regard the introduction, "As we have received" etc., as autobiographical, and to infer that Eusebius had exercised the office of the priesthood in the city of Caesarea before he became its bishop, and had received his earliest religious instruction and the sacrament of Baptism there also. But other interpretations of this document are given, one of which destroys, while the other diminishes, its biographical value: (a) According to some the creed proffered by Eusebius was drawn up as a formula to be subscribed by all the bishops. It was they who were to say that it embodied what they had been taught as catechumens and had taught as priests and bishops. This seems to have been the view generally held before Hort, and was Kattenbusch's view in 1894 (Das apostolische Symbol, vol. I, p. 231). One objection to this view may be noted. It makes all the bishops equivalently say that before they received the episcopate they had for some time exercised the duties of the priesthood. (b) Others maintain that this creed was not the local creed of Caesarea, but one drawn up by Eusebius in his own justification as embodying what he had always believed and taught. According to this interpretation the preliminary statement still remains autobiographical; but it merely informs us that the writer exercised the office of priest before he became a bishop. This interpretation has been adopted by Kattenbusch in his second volume (p. 239) published in 1900. One of the reasons which he gives for his change of view is that when he was preparing his first volume he used Socrates, who does not give the superscription which we have printed in brackets. It is a vital matter with writers of the school of Kattenbusch not to accept what seems the natural interpretation of Eusebius's words, viz., that the creed he read before the council was actually the one he had always used. If this is admitted, "then", to quote Dr. Sanday, "I cannot but think that the theory of Kattenbusch and Harnack [viz. that the Eastern creeds were daughters of the early Roman creed, and this latter did not reach the East till about A.D. 272] breaks down altogether. Bishop Lightfoot... puts the birth of Eusebius about 260 A.D., so that he would be something like twelve years old when Aurelian intervened in the affairs of Antioch. In other words he was in all probability already baptized, and had already been catechised in the Caesarean creed at a time when, in the Kattenbusch-Harnack hypothesis, the parent of that creed had not yet reached Antioch—much less Caesarea or Jerusalem" (Journ. Th. Studies, I, 15).

The passage just quoted shows that the date of Eusebius's birth is more than a merely curious question. According to Lightfoot, it cannot have been "much later than A.D. 260" (p. 309); according to Harnack, "it can hardly be placed later than 260-265" (Chronologie, I, p. 106). The data from which they argue are the persons and events which Eusebius describes as belonging to "our own times". Thus, at the end of his account of the epistles of Dionysius of Alexandria, he says he is now going to relate the events of "our own times" (kath' hemas.—H.E., VII, 26). He then recounts how, at Rome, Pope Dionysius (259-268) succeeded Xystus, and about the same time Paul of Samosata became Bishop of Antioch. Elsewhere (H. E., V, 28) he speaks of the same Paul as reviving "in our own time" (kath' hemas) the heresy of Artemon. He also speaks of the Alexandrian Dionysius (d. 265) in the same way (H. E., III, 28). He calls Manes, whom he places (H. E., VII, 31) during the episcopate of Felix (270-274), "the maniac of yesterday and our own times" (Theophania, IV, 30). An historian might of course refer to events recent, but before his own birth, as belonging to "our own times"; e.g. a man of thirty might speak thus of the Franco-German war in 1870. But the reference to Manes as "the maniac of yesterday" certainly suggests a writer who is alluding to what happened within his own personal recollection.

Concerning Eusebius's parentage we know absolutely nothing, but the fact that he escaped with a short term of imprisonment during the terrible Diocletian persecution, when his master Pamphilus and others of his companions suffered martyrdom, suggests that he belonged to a family of some influence and importance. His relations, later on, with the Emperor Constantine point to the same conclusion. At some time during the last twenty years of the third century he visited Antioch, where he made the acquaintance of the priest Dorotheus, and heard him expound the Scriptures (H. E., VII, 32). By a slip of the pen or the memory, Lightfoot (p. 309) makes Dorotheus a priest of the Church of Caesarea. In 296 he saw for the first time the future Emperor Constantine, as he passed through Palestine in the company of Diocletian (Vit. Const., I, 19).

At a date which cannot be fixed Eusebius made the acquaintance of Pamphilus, the founder of the magnificent library which remained for several centuries the great glory of the Church of Caesarea. Pamphilus came from Phoenicia, but at the time we are considering resided at Caesarea, where he presided over a college or school for students. A man of noble birth, and wealthy, he sold his patrimony and gave the proceeds to the poor. He was a great friend to indigent students, supplying them to the best of his ability with the necessaries of life, and bestowing on them copies of the Holy Scriptures. Too humble to write anything himself, he spent his time in preparing accurate copies of the Scriptures and other books, especially those of Origen. Eloquent testimonies to the care bestowed by Pamphilus and Eusebius on the sacred text are found in Biblical MSS. which have reproduced their colophons. We give three specimens. (I) The following is prefixed to Ezechiel in the codex Marchalianus. A facsimile of the original will be found in Mai's "Bib. nov. Pat.", IV, p. 218, and in Migne. It is printed in ordinary type in Swete's O. T. in Greek (vol. III, p. viii). It must be remembered that Origen's own copy of the Hexapla was in the library of Pamphilus. It had probably been deposited there by Origen himself.

"The following was transcribed from a copy of the Father Apollinarius the Coenobiarch, to which these words are subjoined: ‚ÄòIt was transcribed from the editions of the Hexapla and was corrected from the Tetrapla of Origen himself which also had been corrected and furnished with scholia in his own handwriting, whence I, Eusebius, added the scholia, Pamphilus and Eusebius corrected."

(2) At the end of the Book of Esdras, in the codex Sinaiticus, there is the following note:

"It was compared with a very ancient copy that had been corrected by the hand of the blessed martyr Pamphilus to which is appended in his own hand this subscription: `It was transcribed and corrected according to the Hexapla of Origen. Antoninus compared, I, Pamphilus, corrected.'" (Swete, vol. II, p. 212.)

(3) The same codex and also the Vatican and Alexandrine quote a colophon like the above, with the difference that Antoninus has become a confessor, and Pamphilus is in prison—"Antoninus the confessor compared, Pamphilus corrected". The volume to which this colophon was subjoined began with I Kings and ended with Esther. Pamphilus was certainly not idle in prison. To most of the books in the Syro-Hexaplar is subjoined a note to the effect that they were translated from the Hexapla in the library of Caesarea and compared with a copy subscribed: "I, Eusebius, corrected [the above] as carefully as I could" (Harnack, "Altchrist. Lit.", pp. 544, 545).

May not the confessor Antoninus be the same person as the priest of that name who, later on, with two companions interrupted the governor when he was on the point of sacrificing, and was beheaded? (Mart. Pal., 9.) One member of Pamphilus's household, Apphianus, had done the same a few years before; and another, Aedesius, after being tortured and sent to the mines, on obtaining his release provoked martyrdom at Alexandria by going before the governor and rebuking him. Towards the end of 307 Pamphilus was arrested, horribly tortured, and consigned to prison. Besides continuing his work of editing the Septuagint, he wrote, in collaboration with Eusebius, a Defense of Origen which was sent to the confessors in the mines—a wonderful gift from a man whose sides had been curried with iron combs, to men with their right eyes burned out and the sinews of their left legs cauterized. Early in 309 Pamphilus and several of his disciples were beheaded. Out of devotion to his memory Eusebius called himself Eusebius Pamphili, meaning, probably, that he wished to be regarded as the bondsman of him whose name "it is not meet that I should mention... without styling him my lord" (Mart. Pal., ed. Cureton, p. 37). Mr. Gifford, in the introduction to his translation of the "Praep. Evang.", has suggested another explanation on the authority of an ancient scholion emanating from Caesarea which calls Eusebius the "son of Pamphilus". He argues further that Pamphilus, in order to make Eusebius his heir, took the necessary step of adopting him.

During the persecution Eusebius visited Tyre and Egypt and witnessed numbers of martyrdoms (H. E., VIII, vii and ix). He certainly did not shun danger, and was at one time a prisoner. When, where, or how he escaped death or any kind of mutilation, we do not know. An indignant bishop, who had been one of his fellow-prisoners and "lost an eye for the Truth", demanded at the Council of Tyre how "he came off scathless". To this taunt—it was hardly a question—made under circumstances of great provocation, Eusebius deigned no reply (Epiphan., Haer., lxviii, 8; cf. St. Athanas., "Apol. c. Arian.", viii, 1). He had many enemies, yet the charge of cowardice was never seriously made—the best proof that it could not have been sustained. We may assume that, as soon as the persecution began to relax, Eusebius succeeded Pamphilus in the charge of the college and library. Perhaps he was ordained priest about this time. By 315 he was already a bishop, for he was present in that capacity at the dedication of a new basilica at Tyre, on which occasion he delivered a discourse given in full in the last book of the Church history.

Alexander, Bishop of Alexandria, excommunicated Arius about the year 320. The Arians soon found that for all practical purposes Eusebius was on their side. He wrote to Alexander charging him with misrepresenting the teaching of the Arians and so giving them cause "to attack and misrepresent whatever they please" (see below). A portion of this letter has been preserved in the Acts of the second Council of Nicaea, where it was cited to prove that Eusebius was a heretic. He also took part in a synod of Syrian bishops who decided that Arius should be restored to his former position, but on his side he was to obey his bishop and continually entreat peace and communion with him (Soz., H. E., I, 15). According to Duchesne (Hist. de l'Eglise, II, 132), Arius, like Origen before him, found an asylum at Caesarea. At the opening of the Council of Nicaea Eusebius occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor, and delivered the inaugural address which was "couched in a strain of thanksgiving to Almighty God on his, the emperor's, behalf" (Vit. Const., III, 11; Soz., H. E., I, 19). He evidently enjoyed great prestige and may not unreasonably have expected to be able to steer the council through the via media between the Scylla and Charybdis of "Yes" and "No". But if he entertained such hopes they were soon disappointed. We have already spoken of the profession of faith which he brought forward to vindicate his own orthodoxy, or perhaps in the hope that the council might adopt it. It was, in view of the actual state of the controversy, a colorless, or what at the present day would be called a comprehensive, formula. After some delay Eusebius subscribed to the uncompromising creed drawn up by the council, making no secret, in the letter which he wrote to his own Church, of the non-natural sense in which he accepted it. Between 325 and 330 a heated controversy took place between Eusebius and Eustathius, Bishop of Antioch. Eustathius accused Eusebius of tampering with the faith of Nicaea; the latter retorted with the charge of Sabellianism. In 331 Eusebius was among the bishops who, at a synod held in Antioch, deposed Eustathius. He was offered and refused the vacant see. In 334 and 335 he took part in the campaign against St. Athanasius at the synods held in Caesarea and Tyre respectively. From Tyre the assembly of bishops were summoned to Jerusalem by Constantine, to assist at the dedication of the basilica he had erected on the site of Calvary. After the dedication they restored Arius and his followers to communion. From Jerusalem they were summoned to Constantinople (336), where Marcellus was condemned. The following year Constantine died. Eusebius survived him long enough to write his Life and two treatises against Marcellus, but by the summer of 341 he was already dead, since it was his successor, Acacius, who assisted as Bishop of Caesarea at a synod held at Antioch in the summer of that year.

WRITINGS.—We shall take Eusebius's writings in the order given in Harnack's "Altchrist. Lit.", pp. 554 sqq.

A. Historical.—(I) The lost Life of Pamphilus, often referred to by Eusebius, of which only a single fragment, describing Pamphilus' liberality to poor students, quoted by St. Jerome (c. Ruffin., I, ix), survives.—(2) A collection of Ancient Martyrdoms, used by the compiler of Wright's Syriac Martyrology, also lost.—(3) On the Martyrs of Palestine. There are two distinct forms of this work, both drawn up by Eusebius. The longer is only extant in a Syriac version which was first edited and translated by Cureton in 1861. The shorter form is found in most MSS. (not, however, in the best) of the Church History, sometimes at the end of the last book, generally between books VIII and IX, also in the middle of book VIII. The existence of the same work in two different forms raises a number of curious literary problems. There is, of course, the question of priority. Here, with two notable exceptions, scholars seem to be agreed in favor of the longer form. Then comes the question, why Eusebius abridged it and, finally, how the abridgment found its way into the Church History. The shorter form lacks some introductory remarks, referred to in c. xiii, which defined the scope of the book. It also breaks off when the writer is about to "record the palinode" of the persecutors. It seems probable that part of the missing conclusion is extant in the form of an appendix to the eighth book of the Church History found in several MSS. This appendix contrasts the miserable fate of the persecutors with the good fortune of Constantine and his father. From these data Lightfoot concludes that what we now possess formed "part of a larger work in which the sufferings of the Martyrs were set off against the deaths of the persecutors". It must, however, be remembered that the missing parts would not add much to the book. So far as the martyrs are concerned, it is evidently complete, and the fate of the persecutors would not take long in the telling. Still, the missing conclusion may explain why Eusbius curtailed, his account of the Martyrs. The book, in both forms, was intended for popular reading. It was therefore desirable to keep down the price of copies. If this was to be done, and new matter (i.e. the fate of the persecutors) added, the old matter had to be somewhat curtailed. In 1894, in the Theologische Literaturzeitung (p. 464) Preuschen threw out the idea that the shorter form was merely a rough draft not intended for publication. Bruno Violet, in his "Die Palastinischen Martyrer" (Texte u. Untersuch., XIV, 4, 1896) followed up this idea and pointed out that, whereas the longer form was constantly used by the compilers of Martyrologies, Menologies, and the like, the shorter form was never used. In a review of Violet (Theolog. Litz, 1897, p. 300), Preuschen returns to his original idea, and further suggests that the shorter form must have been joined to the Church History by some copyist who had access to Eusebius's MSS. Harnack (Chronologie, 11, 115) holds to the priority of the longer form, but he thinks that the shorter form was composed almost at the same time for readers of the Church History.—(4) The Chronicle (see separate article, EUSEBIUS, CHRONICLE OF).—(5) The Church History. It would be difficult to overestimate the obligation which posterity is under to Eusebius for this monumental work. Living during the period of transition, when the old order was changing and all connected with it was passing into oblivion, he came forward at the critical moment with his immense stores of learning and preserved priceless treasures of Christian antiquity. This is the great merit of the Church History. It is not a literary work which can be read with any pleasure for the sake of its style. Eusebius's "diction", as Photius said, "is never pleasant nor clear". Neither is it the work of a great thinker. But it is a storehouse of information collected by an indefatigable student. Still, great as was Eusebius's learning, it had its limitations. He is provokingly ill-informed about the West. That he knows very little about Tertullian or St. Cyprian is due, no doubt, to his scant knowledge of Latin; but in the case of a Greek writer, like Hippolytus, we can only suppose that his works somehow failed to make their way to the libraries of the East. Eusebius's good faith and sincerity has been amply vindicated by Lightfoot. Gibbon's celebrated sneer, about a writer "who indirectly confesses that he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and that he has suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of religion", can be sufficiently met by referring to the passages (H. E., VIII, ii; Mart. Pal. c. 12) on which it is based. Eusebius does not "indirectly confess", but openly avows, that he passes over certain scandals, and he enumerates them and denounces them. "Nor again", to quote Lightfoot, "can the special charges against his honor as a narrator be sustained. There is no ground whatever for the charge that Eusebius forged or interpolated the passage from Josephus relating to our Lord quoted in H. E., I, 11, though Heinichen is disposed to entertain the charge. Inasmuch as this passage is contained in all our MSS., and there is sufficient evidence that other interpolations (though not this) were introduced into the text of Josephus long before his time (see Orig., c. Cels., I, 47, Delarue's note) no suspicion can justly attach to Eusebius himself. Another interpolation in the Jewish historian, which he quotes elsewhere (11, 23), was certainly known to Origen (I. c.). Doubtless also the omission of the owl in the account of Herod Agrippa's death (H. E., 11, 10) was already in some texts of Josephus (Ant., XIX, 8, 2). The manner in which Eusebius deals with his numerous quotations elsewhere, where we can test his honesty, is a sufficient vindication against this unjust charge" (L., p. 325).

The notices in the Church History bearing on the New Testament Canon are so important that a word must be said about the rule followed by Eusebius in what he recorded and what he left unrecorded. Speaking generally, his principle seems to have been to quote testimonies for and against those books only whose claims to a place in the Canon had been disputed. In the case of undisputed books he gave any interesting information concerning their composition which he had come across in his reading. The subject was most carefully investigated by Lightfoot in an article in "The Contemporary" (January, 1875, reprinted in "Essays on Supernatural Religion"), entitled "The Silence of Eusebius". In regard to the Gospel of St. John, Lightfoot concludes: "The silence of Eusebius respecting early witnesses to the Fourth Gospel is an evidence in its favor." For the episcopal lists in the Church History, see article on the Chronicle. The tenth book of the Church History records the defeat of Licinius in 323, and must have been completed before the death and disgrace of Crispus in 326, for it refers to him as Constantine's "most pious son". The ninth book was compiled between the defeat of Maxentius in 312, and Constantine's first rupture with Licinius in 314.

(6) The Life of Constantine, in four books. This work has been most unjustly blamed, from the time of Socrates downwards, because it is a panegyric rather than a history. If ever there was a man under an obligation to respect the maxim, De mortuis nil nisi bonum, this man was Eusebius, writing the Life of Constantine within three years after his death (337). This Life is especially valuable because of the account it gives of the Council of Nicaea and the earlier phases of the Arian controversy. It is well to remember that one of our chief sources of information for the history of that council is a book written to magnify Constantine.

B. Apologetic.—(7) Against Hierocles. Hierocles, who, as governor in Bithynia and in Egypt, was a cruel enemy of the Christians during the persecution, before the persecution had attacked them with the pen. There was nothing original about his work except the use he made of Philostratus's Life of Apollonius of Tyana to institute a comparison between our Lord and Apollonius in favor of the latter. In his reply Eusebius confined himself to this one point.—(8) "Against Porphyry", a work in twenty-five books of which not a fragment survives.—(9) The "Praeparatio Evangelica", in fifteen books.—(10) The "Demonstratio Evangelica", in twenty books, of which the last ten, with the exception of a fragment of the fifteenth, are lost. The object of these two treatises, which should be regarded as two parts of one comprehensive work, was to justify the Christian in rejecting the religion and philosophy of the Greeks in favor of that of the Hebrews, and then to justify him in not observing the Jewish manner of life. The "Praeparatio" is devoted to the first of these objects. The following summary of its contents is taken from Mr. Gifford's introduction to his translation of the "Praeparatio": "The first three books discuss the threefold system of Pagan Theology, Mythical, Allegorical, and Political. The next three, IV-VI, give an account of the chief oracles, of the worship of demons, and of the various opinions of Greek Philosophers on the doctrines of Fate and Free Will. Books VII-IX give reasons for preferring the religion of the Hebrews founded chiefly on the testimony of various authors to the excellency of their Scriptures and the truth of their history. In Books X-XII Eusebius argues that the Greeks had borrowed from the older theology and philosophy of the Hebrews, dwelling especially on the supposed dependence of Plato upon Moses. In the last three books the comparison of Moses with Plato is continued, and the mutual contradictions of other Greek Philosophers, especially the Peripatetics and Stoics, are exposed and criticized."

The "Praeparatio" is a gigantic feat of erudition, and, according to Harnack (Chronologie, II, p. 120), was, like many of Eusebius's other works, actually composed during the stress of the persecution. It ranks, with the Chronicle, second only to the Church History in importance, because of its copious extracts from ancient authors whose works have perished. The first book of the Demonstratio chiefly deals with the temporary character of the Mosaic Law. In the second the prophecies concerning the vocation of the Gentiles and the rejection of the Jews are discussed. In the remaining eight the testimonies of the prophets concerning Christ are treated of.

We now pass to three books, of which nothing is known save that they were read by Photius, viz. (11), The "Praeparatio Ecclesiastica", (12) the "Demonstratio Ecclesiastica", and (13) Two Books of Objection and Defense, of which, from Photius's account, there seem to have been two separate editions. (14) The "Theophania" or "Divine Manifestation". Except for a few fragments of the original, this work is only extant in a Syriac version discovered by Tattam, edited by Lee in 1842, and translated by the same in 1843. It treats of the cosmic function of the Word, the nature of man, the need of revelation, etc. The fourth and fifth books are particularly remarkable as a kind of anticipation of modern books on Christian evidences. A curious literary problem arises out of the relations between the "Theophania" and the work "De Laudibus Constantini". There are entire passages which are almost verbatim the same in both works. Lightfoot decides in favor of the priority of the first-named work. Gressel, who has edited the "Theophania" for the Berlin edition of the Greek Fathers, takes the opposite view. He compares the parallel passages and argues that they are improved in the "De Laudibus Constantini". (15) "On the Numerous Progeny of the Ancients". This work is referred to by Eusebius twice, in the "Praep. Ev.", VII, 8, and in the "Dem. Ev.", VII, 8; and also (Lightfoot and Harnack think) by St. Basil ("De Spir. Sanct.", xxix), where he says, "I draw attention to his [Eusebius's] words in discussing the difficulties started in connection with ancient polygamy." Arguing from St. Basil's words, Lightfoot thinks that in this treatise Eusebius dealt with the difficulty presented by the Patriarchs possessing more than one wife. But he overlooked the reference in the "Dem. Ev.", from which it would appear that the difficulty dealt with was, perhaps, a more general one, viz., the contrast presented by the desire of the Patriarchs for a numerous offspring and the honor in which continence was held by Christians.

C. Exegetical.—(16) Eusebius narrates, in his Life of Constantine (IV, 36, 37), how he was commissioned by the emperor to prepare fifty sumptuous copies of the Bible for use in the Churches of Constantinople. Some scholars have supposed that the Codex Sinaiticus was one of these copies. Lightfoot rejects this view chiefly on the ground that "the Text of the codex in many respects differs too widely from the readings found in Eusebius".—(17) Sections and Canons. Eusebius drew up ten canons, the first containing a list of passages common to all four Evangelists; the second, those common to the first three and so on. He also divided the Gospels into sections numbered continuously. A number, against a section, referred the reader to the particular canon where he could find the parallel sections or passages.—(18) The labors of Pamphilus and Eusebius in editing the Septuagint have already been spoken of. They "believed (as did St. Jerome nearly a century afterwards) that Origen had succeeded in restoring the old Greek version to its primitive purity". The result was a "mischievous mixture of the Alexandrian version with the versions of Aquila and Theodotion" (Swete, "Introd. to O. T. in Greek", pp. 77, 78). For the labors of the two friends on the text of the N. T. the reader may be referred to Bousset, "Textcritische Studien zum N. T.", c. ii. Whether as in the case of the Old Testament, they worked on any definite critical principles is not known.—(19) (a) Interpretation of the ethnological terms in the Hebrew Scriptures; (b) Chorography of Ancient Judaea with the Inheritances of the Ten Tribes; (c) A plan of Jerusalem and the Temple; (d) On the Names of Places in the Holy Scriptures. These four works were written at the request of Eusebius's friend Paulinus. Only the fourth is extant. It is known as the "Topics," or the "Onomasticon".—(20) On the nomenclature of the Book of the Prophets. This work gives a short biography of each Prophet and an account of his prophecies.—(21) Commentary on the Psalms. There are many gaps in the MSS. of this work, and they end in the 118th Psalm. The missing portions are in part supplied by extracts from the Catenae. An allusion to the discovery of the Holy Sepulchre fixes the date at about 330. Lightfoot speaks very highly of this commentary.—(22) Commentary on Isaiah, written after the persecution.—(23 to 28) Commentaries on other books of Holy Scripture, of some of which what may be extracts are preserved. (29) Commentary on St. Luke, of which what seem to be extracts are preserved.—(30) Commentary on I Cor., the existence of which seems to be implied by St. Jerome (Ep. xlix).—(31) Commentary on Hebrews. A passage that seems to belong to such a commentary was discovered and published by Mai.—(32) On the Discrepancies of the Gospels, in two parts. An epitome, very probably from the hand of Eusebius, of this work was discovered and published by Mai in 1825. Extracts from the original are preserved. Of the two parts, the first, dedicated to a certain Stephen, discusses questions respecting the genealogies of Christ; the second, dedicated to one Marinus, questions concerning the Resurrection. The Discrepancies were largely borrowed from by St. Jerome and St. Ambrose, and have thus indirectly exercised a considerable influence on Biblical studies.—(33) General Elementary Introduction, consisting of ten books, of which VI-IX are extant under the title of "Prophetical Extracts". These were written during the persecution. There are also a few fragments of the remaining books. "This work seems to have been a general introduction to theology, and its contents were very miscellaneous as the extant remains show" (L., p. 339).

D. Dogmatic.—(34) The Apology for Origen. This work has already been mentioned in connection with Pamphilus. It consisted of six books, the last of which was added by Eusebius. Only the first book is extant, in a translation by Rufinus.—(35) "Against Marcellus, Bishop of Ancyra", and (36) "On the Theology of the Church", a refutation of Marcellus. In two articles in the "Zeitschrift für die Neutest. Wissenschaft" (vol. IV, pp. 330 sqq. and vol. VI, pp. 250 sqq.), written in English, Prof. Conybeare has maintained that our Eusebius could not have been the author of the two treatises against Marcellus. His arguments are rejected by Prof. Klostermann, in his introduction to these two works published in 1905 for the Berlin edition of the Greek Fathers. The "Contra Marcellum" was written after 336 to justify the action of the synod held at Constantinople when Marcellus was deposed; the "Theology" a year or two later.—(37) "On the Paschal Festival" (a mystical interpretation). This work was addressed to Constantine (Vit. Const., IV, 35, 36). A long fragment of it was discovered by Mai.—(38) A treatise against the Manichans is perhaps implied by Epiphanius (Haer., lxvi, 21).

E. Orations and Sermons.—(39) At the Dedication of the Church in Tyre (see above).—(40) At the Vicennalia of Constantine. This seems to have been the opening address delivered at the Council of Nicaea. It is not extant.—(41) On the Sepulchre of the Savior, A.D. 325 (Vit. Const., IV, 33) not extant.—(42) At the Tricennalia of Constantine. This work is generally known as the "De Laudibus Constantin". The second part (11-18) seems to have been a separate oration joined on to the Tricennalia.—(43) "In Praise of the Martyrs". This oration is preserved in the same MS. as the "Theophania" and "Martyrs of Palestine". It was published and translated in the "Journal of Sacred Literature" by Mr. H. B. Cowper (New Series, V, pp. 403 sqq., and ibid. VI, pp. 129 sqq.).—(44) On the Failure of Rain, not extant.

F. Letters—The history of the preservation of the three letters, (45) to Alexander of Alexandria, (46) to Euphrasion, or Euphration, (47) to the Empress Constantia, is sufficiently curious. Constantia asked Eusebius to send her a certain likeness of Christ of which she had heard; his refusal was couched in terms which centuries afterwards were appealed to by the Iconoclasts. A portion of this letter was read at the Second Council of Niceaa, and against it were set portions from the letters to Alexander and Euphrasion to prove that Eusebius "was delivered up to a reprobate sense, and of one mind and opinion with those who followed the Arian superstition" (Labbe, "Conc.", VIII, 1143-1147; Mansi, "Conc.", XIII, 313-317). Besides the passage quoted in the council, other parts of the letter to Constantia are extant.—(48) To the Church of Caesarea after the Council of Nicaea. This letter has already been described.

F. J. BACCHUS


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eusebius of Dorylæum

Eusebius of Dorylæum, Bishop of Dorylæum in Asia Minor, was the prime mover on behalf of Catholic orthodoxy against the heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches. During the earlier part of his life he followed the profession of an advocate at Constantinople, and was already known as a layman of considerable learning when he protested publicly (423) against the erroneous doctrine of a discourse delivered by Anastasius, the syncellus, or chaplain, of Nestorius. Shortly afterwards he again bore public witness against the Nestorian heresy as to the nature of Christ, this time during a discourse by Nestorius himself, which he interrupted with the exclamation that "the eternal Word had undergone a second generation"—i.e. of a woman, according to the flesh. Much disorder followed, but Nestorius replied with arguments against the "second generation".

After the Council of Ephesus (431), at which the teaching of Nestorius had been condemned, a document attributed by general consent to Eusebius was made public, in which the doctrine of Nestorius was shown to be identical with that of Paul of Samosata. Eusebius had at some period contracted a friendship with Eutyches, founded, we may fairly conjecture, on their common opposition to Nestorian error. But when Eutyches allowed himself to be betrayed into opinions which, though directly opposed to those of Nestorius, were equally contrary to the faith of the Church, Eusebius, now Bishop of Dorylteum, was no less zealous against his former friend than he had been against their common opponent. After repeated attempts at persuasion, Eusebius brought a formal charge of false teaching against Eutyches, before Flavian, who was then (448) presiding over a synod at Constantinople. Flavian was reluctant to proceed against Eutyches, and urged Eusebius to remonstrate with him privately once more. Eusebius, however, refused, saying that he had already done all he could to convince Eutyches of his errors, and that further efforts would be useless. Eutyches was then summoned to attend, but did not do so until the summons had been three times issued; he excused his refusal to obey by asserting that he had resolved never to leave his monastery and pleading distrust of Eusebius, whom he now looked upon as his enemy. At last, however, he came, attended by a large escort of soldiers and monks. He was interrogated by Eusebius, who in the meantime had been strongly pressing his case, and who now, as he said, felt some alarm lest Eutyches should succeed in evading condemnation and retaliate upon his accuser by obtaining a decree of banishment against him. Eutyches, however, was condemned and deposed; he immediately wrote a letter to the pope, complaining of Eusebius's proceedings, which he attributed to the instigation of the devil.

In the following year (449) at Constantinople, an examination was held, by imperial authority, of the acts of the synod which had condemned Eutyches, which acts he alleged to have been falsified. Eutyches was represented by three delegates; Eusebius, who wished to withdraw but was not permitted to do so, urged that the doctrinal question should not be considered on that occasion, but should be remitted to a general council. On the assembly of the council then summoned at Ephesus (see Robber Council of Ephesus), Eusebius was forcibly excluded by the influence of Dioscurus of Alexandria, who had obtained the support of the emperor. The reading of his part in the synod at Constantinople provoked an outburst of reproaches and threats: "Away with Eusebius! Burn him! As he has divided so let him be divided!" Flavian and Eusebius were deposed and banished, and Flavian only survived for three days the physical injuries he had received in the tumultuary council. Eusebius wrote to the Emperors Valentinian and Marcian, asking for a fresh hearing; and both Eusebius and Flavian sent written appeals to Rome. The text of these appeals was discovered in 1879 by Amelli—who was then curator of the Ambrosian Library at Milan and afterwards became Abbot of Monte Cassino—and was published by him in 1882. Eusebius grounds his appeal on the fact of his having been condemned unheard, and prays the pope to quash the sentence (pronuntiate evacuari et inanem fieri meam iniquam condemnationem); he also mentions a written appeal given by him to the papal legates at Ephesus, in which he had begged the Holy See to take cognizance of the matter (in quibus vestrae sedis cognitionem poposci). Eusebius fled to Rome, where he was kindly received by Leo I. In two letters written on the same day (April 13, 451) to Pulcheria and Anatolius, the pope bespeaks their good offices for Eusebius; in the former letter he mentions a report that the Diocese of Dorylaeum was being thrown into disorder by an intruder (quam dicitur vastare qui illi injuste asseritur subrogatus). But Liberatus (Breviarium, c. xii) says that no one was put in Eusebius's place, and the report was therefore probably of merely local origin.

Eusebius took part in the Council of Chalcedon, at which he appears as the accuser of Dioscurus. He was one of the commission which drew up the definition of faith finally adopted. The council annulled his condemnation, and made special mention of the fact in the letter to the pope in which it sought his confirmation of its acts. The rescript of the Emperor Marcian (451), issued to clear the memory of Flavian, declares the reputation of Eusebius to be uninjured by the sentence of the Robber Council (injusta sententia nihil obsit Eusebio). He was one of the bishops who signed the 28th canon of Chalcedon giving patriarchal rights over Pontus and Asia to Constantinople. When the papal legates demurred to the passing of the canon in their absence, and the signatories of the region affected were asked to declare whether they had signed willingly or not, Eusebius said that he had done so, because, when in Rome, he had read the canon to the pope, who had accepted it. Though he was doubtless mistaken as to the fact alleged (how the mistake arose cannot now be determined), his professed motive is significant. His name appears among the signatures to the acts of a council held in Rome in 503, but it seems improbable that he was alive at that date. Baronius considers that the signatures of numerous Eastern bishops appended to these acts are misplaced, and properly belong to some much earlier council; since none of the bishops are otherwise heard of later than ten years after the Council of Chalcedon, at which they had all been present.

Flavian said of Eusebius at Constantinople that "fire seemed cold to his zeal for orthodoxy", and Leo wrote of him that he was a man who "had undergone great perils and toils for the Faith". In these two sentences all that is known of him may be fitly summarized.

A. B. SHARPE

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eusebius of Laodicea

Eusebius of Laodicea, an Alexandrian deacon who had some fame as a confessor and became Bishop of Laodicea in Syria, date of birth uncertain; d. about 268. His story is told by Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. Eccl., VII, xi and xxxii). As deacon at Alexandria he had accompanied his bishop, Dionysius (with a priest, two other deacons, and two Romans who were then in Egypt) before the tribunal of Aemilian, Prefect of Egypt, at the time of the Emperor Valerianus (253-260). Dionysius tells the story of their trial in a letter to a certain Bishop Germanus (Eus., Hist. Eccl., VII, xi). They were all sentenced to banishment, but Eusebius managed to remain in the city in hiding, "zealously served the confessors in prison and buried the bodies of the dead and of the blessed martyrs, not without danger to his own life" (ibid.). In 260 there broke out a rebellion at Alexandria and at the same time a plague ravaged the city. Eusebius again risked his life continually by nursing the sick and the wounded (ibid., VII, xxxii). The Romans besieged a part of the town (Bruchium, Puroucheion, Prouchion). Anatolius, Eusebius' friend, was among the besieged, Eusebius himself outside. Eusebius went to the Roman general and asked him to allow any who would to leave Bruchium. His petition was granted and Anatolius, with whom he managed to communicate, explained the matter to the leaders of the rebellion and implored them to capitulate. They refused, but eventually allowed the women, children, and old men to profit by the Romans' mercy. A great crowd then came to surrender at the Roman camp. "Eusebius there nursed all who were exhausted by the long siege with every care and attention as a father and a physician" (ibid., xxxii). In 264 Dionysius (who seems to have come back from banishment) sent Eusebius as his legate to Syria to represent him at the discussions that were taking place concerning the affair of Paul of Samosata. Anatolius accompanied his friend. The Syrians were so impressed by these two Egyptians that they kept them both and made Eusebius Bishop of Laodicea as successor to Socrates. Not long afterwards he died and was succeeded by Anatolius. The date of his death is uncertain. Harnack thinks it was before the great Synod of Antioch in 268 (Chron. der altchrist. Litt., I, 34). Another theory is that the siege at Alexandria was in 269, that the friends went to Syria at the end of that year, and that Eusebius's death was not till 279 (so W. Reading in the Variorum notes to his edition of Eusebius Pamph., Cambridge, 1720, I, 367). Gams puts his death in 270 (Kirchenlexikon, s.v. Eusebius von Laodicea). Eusebius's name does not occur in the acts of the Synod of 268.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE


text:
Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Eusebius of Nicomedia

Eusebius of Nicomedia, BISHOP, place and date of birth unknown; d. 341. He was a pupil, at Antioch, of Lucian the Martyr, in whose famous school he learned his Arian doctrines. He became Bishop of Berytus; but from ambitious motives he managed to get transferred, contrary to the canons of the early Church, to the see of Nicomedia, the residence of the Eastern Emperor Licinius, with whose wife Constantia, sister of Constantine, he was in high favor.

Arius, when he was condemned at Alexandria, by Alexander, bishop of that see, took refuge at Caesarea, where he was well received by the famous apologist and historian Eusebius, and wrote to Eusebius of Nicomedia for support. The letter is preserved. In it the heretic explains his views clearly enough, and appeals to his correspondent as to a "fellow Lucianist" Eusebius put himself at the head of the party, and wrote many letters in support of Arius. One is preserved, addressed to Paulinus, Bishop of Tyre. We learn from it what Eusebius's doctrine was at this time: the Son, he says, is "not generated from the substance of the Father", but He is "other in nature and power"; He was created, and this is not inconsistent with His Sonship, for the wicked are called sons of God (Is., i, 2; Deut., xxxii, 18) and so are even the drops of dew (Job, xxxviii, 28); He was begotten by God's free will. This is pure Arianism, borrowed from the letters of Arius himself, and possibly more definite than the doctrine of St. Lucian.

Alexander of Alexandria was obliged to address a circular to all bishops. He had hoped, he says, to cover the matter in silence, "but Eusebius, who is now at Nicomedia, considering the Church's affairs to be in his hands, because he has not been condemned for having left Berytus and for having coveted the Church of Nicomedia, is the leader of these apostates, and has sent round a document in their support, in order that he may seduce some of the ignorant into this disgraceful heresy.. If Eusebius should write to you, pay no attention". Eusebius replied by assembling a council in his own province, which begged all the Eastern bishops to communicate with Arius, and to use their influence with Alexander in his favor. At the request of Arius, Eusebius of Caesarea and others met together in Palestine, and authorized him to return to the Church which he had governed in Alexandria.

The situation changed when Constantine had conquered Licinius in 323. The Christian emperor began by comprising Arius and Alexander in a common disapproval. Why could not they agree to differ about subtleties of this kind, as the philosophers did? A letter in this sense to the patriarch was ineffectual; so Constantine preferred the side of authority, and wrote an angry rebuke to Arius. In the case of the Donatists, he had obtained a decision from a "general" council, at Arles, of all the bishops of his then dominions. He now summoned a larger council, from the world of which his victorious arms had made him master. It met at Nicaea in 325. The bishops were nearly all Easterns; but a Western bishop, Hosius of Cordova, who was in the emperor's confidence, took a leading part, and the pope was represented. Constantine ostentatiously declared that his duty at the council went no further than the guardianship of the bishops, but Eusebius of Caesarea makes it clear that he spoke on the theological question. The Bishop of Nicomedia and his friends put forward an Arian confession of faith, but it had only about seventeen supporters from among some three hundred members of the council, and it was hooted by the majority. The formula which was eventually adopted was resisted for some time by the Arian contingent, but eventually all the bishops signed, with the exception of the two Egyptians who had been before excommunicated by Alexander.

Eusebius of Nicomedia had bad luck. Though he had signed the creed, he had not agreed to the condemnation of Arius, who had been, so he said, misrepresented; and after the council he encouraged in their heresy some Arians whom Constantine had invited to Constantinople with a view to their conversion. Three months after the council, the Emperor sent him like Arius into exile, together with Theognis, Bishop of Nicaea, accusing him of having been a supporter of Licinius, and of having even approved of his persecutions, as well as of having sent spies to watch himself. But the banishment of the intriguer lasted only two years. It is said that it was Constantia, the widow of Licinius, who induced Constantine to recall Arius, and it is probable that she was also the cause of the return of her old friend Eusebius. By 329 he was in high favor with the emperor, with whom he may have had some kind of relationship, since Ammianus Marcellinus makes him a relative of Julian.

From this time onwards we find Eusebius of Nicomedia at the head of a small and compact party called, by St. Athanasius, the Eusebians, hoi peri ton Eusebion whose object it was to undo the work of Nicaea, and to procure the complete victory of Arianism. They did not publicly recall the signatures that had been forced from them. They explained that Arius had repented of any excess in his words, or had been misunderstood. They dropped the Nicene formulae, as ambiguous. They were the leaders of a much larger party of conservative prelates, who wished to stand well with the emperor, who reverenced the martyr Lucian and the great Origen, and were seriously alarmed at any danger of Sabellianism. The campaign opened with a successful attack on Eustathius of Antioch, the principal prelate of the East properly so called. He had been having an animated controversy with Eusebius of Caesarea, in which he had accused that learned personage of polytheism, while Eusebius retorted with a charge of Sabellianism. Eustathius was deposed and exiled, for alleged disrespectful expressions about the emperor's mother, St. Helena, who was greatly devoted to the memory of St. Lucian. It is said that he was also charged with immorality and heresy, but it is certain that the whole case was got up by the Eusebians. The great see of Alexandria was filled in 328 by the deacon Athanasius, who had taken a leading part at Nicaea. Small in stature, and young in years, he was at the head of a singularly united body of nearly a hundred bishops, and his energy and vivacity, his courage and determination marked him out as the one foe whom the Eusebians had to dread. The Alexandrian Arians had now signed an ambiguous formula of submission, and Eusebius of Nicomedia wrote to Athanasius, asking him to reinstate them, adding a verbal message of threats. The Meletian schism, in Egypt, had only been partially healed by the mild measures decreed at Nicaea, and the schismatics were giving trouble. Constantine was induced by Eusebius to write to Athanasius curtly telling him he should be deposed, if he refused to receive into the Church any who demanded to be received. Athanasius explained why he could not do this, and the emperor seems to have been satisfied. Eusebius then joined hands with the Meletians, and induced them to trump up charges against Athanasius. They first pretended that he had invented a tribute of linen garments which he exacted. This was disproved, but Athanasius himself was sent for to the court. The Meletians then brought up a charge which did duty for many years, that he had ordered a priest named Macarius to overturn an altar and break up a chalice belonging to a priest named Ischyras, in the Mareotis, though in fact Ischyras had never been a priest, and at the time alleged could not have been pretending to say Mass, for he was ill in bed. It was also said that Athanasius had assisted a certain Philumenus to conspire against the emperor, and had given him a bag of gold. Again the accusers were refuted and put to flight. The saint returned to his Church with a letter from Constantine, in which the emperor sermonized the Alexandrians after his wont, urging them to peace and unity. But the question of the broken chalice was not dropped, and the Meletians further got hold of a bishop named Arsenius, whom they kept in hiding while they declared that Athanasius had put him to death; they carried about a severed hand, which they said was Arsenius's, cut off by the patriarch for the purpose of magic. Athanasius induced Ischyras to sign a document denying the former charge, and managed to discover the whereabouts of Arsenius. Constantine in consequence wrote a letter to the patriarch declaring him innocent.

Eusebius had stood apart from all these false accusations, and he was not disheartened by so many failures. He got the Meletians to demand a synod, and represented to Constantine that it would be right for peace to be obtained before the assembling of many bishops, at Jerusalem, to celebrate the dedication of the new Church of the Holy Sepulchre. This was in 335. A synod met at Tyre, whose history need not be detailed here. Athanasius brought some fifty bishops with him, but they had not been summoned, and were not allowed to sit with the rest. A deputation was sent into the Mareotis to inquire into the question of Ischyras and the chalice, and the chief enemies of Athanasius were chosen for the purpose. The synod was tumultuous, and even the Count Dionysius, who had come with soldiers to support the Eusebians, thought the proceedings unfair. It remains a mystery how so many well-meaning bishops were deceived into condemning Athanasius. He refused to await their judgment. Extricating himself with difficulty from the assembly, he led away his Egyptians and betook himself directly to Constantinople, where he accosted the emperor abruptly, and demanded justice. At his suggestion, the Council of Tyre was ordered to come before the emperor. Meanwhile Eusebius had brought the bishops on to Jerusalem, where the deliberations were made joyous by the reception back into the Church of the followers of Arius. The Egyptian bishops had drawn up a protest, attributing all that had been done at Tyre to a conspiracy between Eusebius and the Meletians and Arians, the enemies of the Church. Athanasius asserts that the final act at Jerusalem had been Eusebius's aim all along; all the accusations against himself had tended only to get him out of the road, in order that the rehabilitation of the Arians might be effected.

Eusebius prevented any of the bishops at Jerusalem from going to Constantinople, save those he could trust, Eusebius of Caesarea, Theognis of Nicaea, Patrophilus of Scythopolis, and the two young Pannonian bishops Ursacius and Valens, who were to continue Eusebius's policy long after his death. They carefully avoided renewing the accusations of murder and sacrilege, which Constantine had already examined; and Athanasius tells us that five Egyptian bishops reported to him that they rested their case on a new charge, that he had threatened to delay the corn ships from Alexandria which supplied Constantinople. The emperor was enraged. No opportunity of defense was given, and Athanasius was banished to Gaul. But, in public, Constantine said that he had put in force the decree of the Council of Tyre. Constantine the Younger, however, declared later that his father had intended to save Athanasius from his enemies by sending him away, and that before dying he had had the intention of restoring him. The leader of the Meletians, John Arkaph, was similarly exiled. Eusebius wanted him no further, and hence did not care to protect him. One triumph was yet wanting to Eusebius, the reconciliation of Arius, his friend. This was to be consummated at length at Constantinople, but the designs of man were frustrated by the hand of God. Arius died suddenly under peculiarly humiliating conditions, on the eve of the day appointed for his solemn restoration to Catholic communion in the cathedral of New Rome.

Until 337 the Eusebians were busy in obtaining, by calumny, the deposition of the bishops who supported the Nicene faith. Of these the best known are Paul of Constantinople, Asclepas of Gaza, and Marcellus, Metropolitan of Ancyra. In the case of Marcellus they had received considerable provocation. Marcellus had been their active enemy at Nicaea. At Tyre he had refused to condemn Athanasius, and he presented a book to the emperor in which the Eusebians received hard words. He was convicted, not without ground, of Sabellianizing, and took refuge at Rome. On May 22, 337, Constantine the Great died at Nicomedia, after having been baptized by Eusebius, bishop of the place. His brothers and all but two of his nephews were at once murdered, in order to simplify the succession, and the world was divided between his three young sons. An arrangement was effected between them by which all exiled bishops returned, and Athanasius came back to his flock. Eusebius was in reality a gainer by the new regime. Constantius, who was now lord of all the East, was but twenty years old. He wished to manage the Church, and he seems to have fallen an easy prey to the arts of the old intriguer Eusebius, so that the rest of his foolish and obstinate life was spent in persecuting Athanasius, and in carrying out Eusebius 's policy. Never himself an Arian, Constantius held orthodoxy to lie somewhere between Arianism and the Nicene faith. The Arians, who were ready to disguise their doctrine to some extent, were therefore able to obtain from him a favor, which he denied to the few uncompromising Catholics who rejected his generalities.

The see of Alexandria had remained vacant during the absence of Athanasius. Eusebius now claimed to put the Synod of Tyre in force, and a rival bishop was set up in the person of Pistus, one of the Arian priests whom Alexander had long ago excommunicated. Until now the East alone had been concerned. The Eusebians were the first to try to get Rome and the West on their side. They sent to the pope an embassy of two priests and a deacon, who carried with them the decisions of the Council of Tyre and the supposed proofs of the guilt of Athanasius, of which the accused himself had been unable to get a sight. Instead of at once granting his communion to Pistus, Pope Julius sent the documents to Athanasius, in order that he might prepare a defense. The latter summoned a council of his suffragans. More than eighty attended, and sent to Julius a complete defense of their patriarch. The arrival of Athanasius's envoys bearing this letter struck terror into the minds of the ambassadors of the Eusebians. The priests fled, and the deacon could think of nothing better than to beg Julius to call a council, and be judge himself. The pope consented, on the ground that in the case of one of the chief Churches such as Alexandria, it was right and customary that the matter should be referred to him. He therefore wrote summoning both accusers and accused to a council of which he was willing that they should determine the place and time.

Thus it was not Athanasius who appealed to the pope, but the Eusebians, and that simply as a means of withdrawing from an awkward predicament. Pistus was not a success, and Constantius introduced by violence a certain Gregory, a Cappadocian, in his place. Athanasius, after addressing a protest to the whole Church against the methods of Eusebius, managed to escape with his life, and at once made his way to Rome to obey the pope's summons. His accusers took good care not to appear. Julius wrote again, fixing the end of the year (339) as the term for their arrival. They detained the legates until the fixed time had elapsed, and sent them back in January, 340, with a letter full of studied and ironical politeness, of which Sozomen has preserved us the tenor. He says: "Having assembled at Antioch, they wrote an answer to Julius, elaborately worded and rhetorically composed, full of irony, and containing terrible threats. They admitted in this letter that Rome was always honored as the school of the Apostles, and the metropolis of the Faith from the beginning, although its teachers had settled in it from the East. But they thought that they ought not to take a secondary place because they had less great and populous Churches, since they were superior in virtue and intention. They reproached Julius with having communicated with Athanasius, and complained that this was an insult to their synod, and that their condemnation of him was made null; and they urged that this was unjust and contrary to ecclesiastical law. After thus reproaching Julius and complaining of ill usage, they promised, if he would accept the deposition of those whom they had deposed, and the appointment of those whom they had ordained, to grant him peace and communion, but if he withstood their decrees, they would refuse to do so. For they declared that the earlier Eastern bishops had made no objection when Novatian was driven out of the Roman Church. But they wrote nothing to Julius concerning their acts, which were contrary to the decisions of the Council of Nicaea, saying that they had many necessary reasons to allege in excuse, but that it was superfluous to make any defense against a vague and general suspicion that they had done wrong." The traditional belief that Rome had been schooled by the Apostles, and had always been the metropolis of the Faith, is interesting in the mouths of those who were denying her right to interfere in the East, in a matter of jurisdiction; for it is to be remembered that neither then, nor at any time, was Athanasius accused of heresy. This claim of independence is the first sign of the breach which began with the foundation of Constantinople as New Rome, and which ended in the complete separation of that city and all its dependencies from Catholic communion. For Eusebius had not contented himself with Nicomedia, now that it was no longer the capital, but had managed to get St. Paul of Constantinople exiled once more, and had seized upon that see, which was evidently, in his view, to be set above Alexandria and Antioch, and to be in very deed a second Rome.

The Roman council met in the autumn of 340. The Eusebians were not represented, but many Easterns, their victims, who had taken refuge at Rome, were there from Thrace, Coele-Syria, Phoenicia and Palestine, besides Athanasius and Marcellus. Deputies came to complain of the violence at Alexandria. Others explained that many Egyptian bishops had wished to come, but had been prevented and even beaten or imprisoned. At the wish of the council the pope wrote a long letter to the Eusebians. It is one of the finest letters written by any pope, and lays bare all the deceits of Eusebius, with a clearness which is as unsparing as it is dignified. It is probable that the letter did not trouble Eusebius much, safe as he was in the emperor's favor. It is true that by the death of Constantine II, Constans, the protector of orthodoxy, had inherited his dominions, and was now far more powerful than Constantius. But Eusebius had never posed as an Arian, and in 341 he had a fresh triumph in the great Dedication Synod of Antioch, where a large number of orthodox and conservative bishops ignored the Council of Nicaea, and showed themselves quite at one with the Eusebian party, though denying that they were followers of Arius, who was not even a bishop!

Eusebius died, full of years and honors, probably soon after the council; at all events he was dead before that of Sardica. He had arrived at the summit of his hopes. He may really have believed Arian doctrine, but clearly his chief aim had ever been his own aggrandisement, and the humiliation of those who had humbled him at Nicaea. He had succeeded. His enemies were in exile. His creatures sat in the sees of Alexandria and Antioch. He was bishop of the imperial city, and the young emperor obeyed his counsels. If Epiphanius is right in calling him an old man even before Nicaea, he must, now have reached a great age. His work lived after him. He had trained a group of prelates who continued his intrigues, and who followed the Court from place to place throughout the reign of Constantius. More than this, it may be said that the world suffers to this day from the evil wrought by this worldly bishop.

.


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Darrel, George


text: Author:Alfred Bowyer Sharpe

title: Author:Alfred Bowyer Sharpe


text:
Page:The Mothers of England.djvu/44

Rh

is the fashion of the present day to direct every means, and to force every effort, to some obvious and immediate result. Thus education has come to be regarded as a process by which the mind is filled, rather than one by which it is exercised in the use of its faculties.

Education is also too frequently considered as a thing which can be compressed into almost any given space of time, by dint of labor and industry; and thus parents who indulge a foolish ambition to see their children pushed on to be clever, make it a practice to stipulate, in sending them to school, that they shall learn everything within the compass of human attainment, except how to use their minds. They complain, too, sometimes, of the high terms of education; and various modes of bargaining, and bringing down those of the different schools to which they apply, are resorted to, with little compunction on the part of parents. Yet when we consider the situation of those who have to receive under their care children who have scarcely been prepared for the process of instruction by one useful habit, or one rational idea; when we consider, too, that in the course of a very few years, perhaps two or three, the habits they have acquired have to be uprooted, an entirely new foundation of moral and intellectual character laid, and upon this a superstructure erected, composed of every branch of learning, and adorned with every accomplishment, and all this with but slender capacity on the part of the child, and no desire whatever to be anything but well dressed, well fed, and exceedingly comfortable; I would ask, what money could repay the labor of converting a succession of such children, year after year, into what are called highly educated men and women? And even if by dint of indefatigable effort on the part of those who teach, there should now and then be one child sent home with a memory loaded to excess—nay, literally crammed with names and dates,

title: Page:The Mothers of England.djvu/44


text:
Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/965

 ANALCITE, a commonly occurring mineral of the zeolite group. It crystallizes in the cubic system, the common form being the icositetrahedron (211), either alone (fig. 1) or in combination with the cube (100); sometimes the faces of the cube predominate in size, and its corners are each replaced by three small triangular faces representing the icositetrahedron (fig. 2). Although cubic in form, analcite usually shows feeble double refraction, and is thus optically anomalous. This feature of analcite has been much studied, Sir David Brewster in 1826 being the earliest investigator. Crystals of analcite are often perfectly colourless and transparent with a brilliant glassy lustre, but some are opaque and white or pinkish-white. The hardness of the mineral is 5 to 5, and its specific gravity is 2·25. Chemically, analcite is a hydrated sodium and aluminium silicate, NaAlSi2O6 + H2O; small amounts of the sodium being sometimes replaced by calcium or by potassium. The water of crystallization is readily expelled by heat, with modification of the optical characters of the crystals. Before the blowpipe the mineral readily fuses with intumescence to a colourless glass. It is decomposed by acids with separation of gelatinous silica.

EB1911 Analcite.png

Analcite usually occurs, associated with other zeolitic minerals, lining amygdaloidal cavities in basic volcanic rocks such as basalt and melaphyre, and especially in such as have undergone alteration by weathering; the Tertiary basalts of the north of Ireland frequently contain cavities lined with small brilliant crystals of analcite. Larger crystals of the same kind are found in the basalt of the Cyclopean Islands (Scogli de’ Ciclopi or Faraglioni) N.E. of Catania, Sicily. Large opaque crystals of the pinkish-white colour are found in cavities in melaphyre at the Seisser Alpe near Schlern in southern Tirol. In all such cases the mineral is clearly of secondary origin, but of late years another mode of occurrence has been recognized, analcite having been found as a primary constituent of certain igneous rocks such as monchiquite and some basalts. The irregular grains, of which it has the form, had previously been mistaken for glass.

Owing to the fact that analcite often crystallizes in cubes, it was long known as cubic zeolite or as cuboite. The name now in use was proposed in 1797 in the form analcime, by R. J. Haüy, in allusion to the weak ( ) electrification of the mineral produced by friction. Euthallite is a compact, greenish analcite, produced by the alteration of elaeolite at various localities in the Langesund-fjord in southern Norway. Eudnophite, from the same region, was originally described as an orthorhombic mineral dimorphous with analcite, but has since been found to be identical with it. Cluthalite, from the Clyde (Clutha) valley, is an altered form of the mineral.

ANALOGY (Gr. , proportion), a term signifying, (1) in general, resemblance which falls short of absolute similarity or identity. Thus by analogy, the word “loud,” originally applied to sounds, is used of garments which obtrude themselves on the attention; all metaphor is thus a kind of analogy. (2) Euclid used the term for proportionate equality; but in mathematics it is now obsolete except in the phrase, “Napier’s Analogies” in spherical trigonometry (see ). (3) In grammar, it signifies similarity in the dominant characteristics of a language, derivation, orthography and so on. (4) In logic, it is used of arguments by inference from resemblances between known particulars to other particulars which are not observed. Under the name of “example” ( ) the process is explained by Aristotle (Prior Anal. ii. 4) as an inference which differs from (q.v.) in having a particular, not a general, conclusion; i.e. if A is demonstrably like B in certain respects, it may be assumed to be like it in another, though the latter is not demonstrated. Kant and his followers state the distinction otherwise, i.e. induction argues from the possession of an attribute by many members of a class that all members of the class possess it, while analogy argues that, because A has some of B’s qualities, it must have them all (cf. Sir Wm. Hamilton, Lectures on Logic, ii. 165-174, for a slight modification of this view). J. S. Mill very properly rejects this artificial distinction, which is in practice no distinction at all; he regards induction and analogy as generically the same, though differing in the demonstrative validity of their evidence, i.e. induction proceeds on the basis of scientific, causal connexion, while analogy, in absence of proof, temporarily accepts a probable hypothesis. In this sense, analogy may obviously have a universal conclusion. This type of inference is of the greatest value in physical science, which has frequently and quite legitimately used such conclusions until a negative instance has disproved or further evidence confirmed them (for a list of typical cases see T. Fowler’s edition of Bacon’s Nov. Org. Aph. ii. 27 note). The value of such inferences depends on the nature of the resemblances on which they are based and on that of the differences which they disregard. If the resemblances are small and unimportant and the differences great and fundamental, the argument is known as “False Analogy.” The subject is dealt with in Francis Bacon’s Novum Organum, especially ii. 27 (see T. H. Fowler’s notes) under the head of Instantiae conformes sive proportionatae. Strictly the argument by analogy is based on similarity of relations between things, not on the similarity of things, though it is, in general, extended to cover the latter. See works on Logic, e.g. J. S. Mill, T. H. Fowler, W. S. Jevons. For Butler’s Analogy and its method see.

The term was used in a special sense by Kant in his phrase, “Analogies of Experience,” the third and most important group in his classification of the a priori elements of knowledge. By it he understood the fundamental laws of pure natural science under the three heads, substantiality, causality, reciprocity (see F. Paulsen, I. Kant, Eng. trans. 1902, pp. 188 ff.).

ANALYSIS (Gr.  and , to break up into parts), in general, the resolution of a whole into its component elements; opposed to synthesis, the combining of separate elements or minor wholes into an inclusive unity. It differs from mere “disintegration” in proceeding on a definite scientific plan. In grammar, analysis is the breaking up of a sentence into subject, predicate, object, &c. (an exercise introduced into English schools by J. D. Morell about 1852); so the analysis of a book or a lecture is a synopsis of the main points. The chief technical uses of the word, which retains practically the same meaning in all the sciences, are in (1) philosophy, (2) mathematics, (3) chemistry.

(1) Logical analysis is the process of examining into the connotation of a concept or idea, and separating the attributes from the whole and each other. It, therefore, does not increase knowledge, but merely clarifies and tests it. In this sense Kant distinguished an analytic from a synthetic judgment, as one in which the predicate is involved in the essence of the subject. Such judgments are also known as verbal, as opposed to real or ampliative judgments. The processes of synthesis and analysis though formally contradictory are practically supplementary; thus to analyse the connotation is to synthesize the denotation of a term, and vice versa; the process of knowledge involves the two methods, analysis being the corrective of synthetic empiricism. In a wider sense the whole of formal logic is precisely the analysis of the laws of thought. Analytical psychology is distinguished from genetic and empirical psychology inasmuch as it proceeds by the method of introspective investigation of mental phenomena instead of by physiological or psycho-physical experiment. For the relation between analysis and synthesis on the one hand, and deduction and induction on the other, see.

(2) In mathematics, analysis has two distinct meanings, conveniently termed ancient and modern. Ancient analysis,

title: Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/965


text:
Page:The Mothers of England.djvu/45

40 and all that is comprised under the head of school-learnings—how few, even out of this small number, find, in the common walks of life, a use for half the acquirements they have so laboriously attained!

I speak not as wishing to reduce the compass of human learning within a narrower circle than it fills at present. Far from it. My idea is, that we never can learn too much, provided that in the acquirement of one thing, we do not neglect another more important; and there will always be, among the many, some minds sufficiently gifted and comprehensive to profit by and repay an extreme amount of culture. But in confining my remarks, as I still wish they should be understood, chiefly to persons of the middle class in Great Britain, one half of whom, supposing society to be divided only into three parts, are connected more or less with business, and subject to all the variety of circumstance which that association entails; I confess I do not see how the mere acquirement of learning, as generally taught in schools, is an indispensable requisite. Indeed, I should have supposed that the use of the faculty of observation in common things, the exercise of ingenuity, and the gradual introduction to the understanding of botany, chemistry, mechanism, and natural history in general, with an habitual readiness in the use of resources, and the application of means to ends, would have been a kind of training, especially if connected with half the amount of school-learning usually bargained for, quite as likely to make clever merchants, and men of business, as well as clever mistresses of families, as that system of education which confines all learning to what may be stored in the memory, and acquired from books.

In the use of a mind, it is very evident that those who teach in schools can have little opportunity for conveying instruction. Their sphere of observation is necessarily limited; each day presents objects little differing from the last; and all those unexpected and novel events which excite interest and inquiry m a private family, it is the aim of school-discipline to prevent, lest the attention of the pupils should be diverted, and lessons consequently hindered by interruption.

The use of a mind, however, is just that important part of education which a mother is so circumstanced as to be

title: Page:The Mothers of England.djvu/45


text: The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/Darvall, Hon. Sir John Bayley


text:
Wikisource:Copyright discussions/Archives/2012-08

=Kept=

Ab Khail VOA Report
=Deleted=

Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities
=Other=


text:
Wikisource:Proposed deletions/Archives/2012-08

=Kept=

Why Ask To Know The Date—The Clime?
=Deleted=

Author:Dr.'Krant' M.L.Verma
=Other=


text:
Page:The Trespasser, Lawrence, 1912.djvu/88

carried the boots and the shoes while they wandered over the sand to the rocks. There was a delightful sense of risk in scrambling with bare feet over the smooth irregular jumble of rocks. Helena laughed suddenly from fear as she felt herself slipping. Siegmund’s heart was leaping like a child’s with excitement as he stretched forward, himself very insecure, to succour her. Thus they travelled slowly. Often she called to him to come and look in the lovely little rock-pools, dusky with blossoms of red anemones and brown anemones that seemed nothing but shadows, and curtained with green of finest sea-silk. Siegmund loved to poke the white pebbles, and startle the little ghosts of crabs in a shadowy scuttle through the weed. He would tease the expectant anemones, causing them to close suddenly over his finger. But Helena liked to watch without touching things. Meanwhile the sun was slanting behind the cross far away to the west, and the light was swimming in silver and gold upon the lacquered water. At last Siegmund looked doubtfully at two miles more of glistening, gilded boulders. Helena was seated on a stone, dabbling her feet in a warm pool, delicately feeling the wet sea-velvet of the weeds.


text:
Page:The Trespasser, Lawrence, 1912.djvu/89

Rh “Don’t you think we had better be mounting the cliffs?” he said.

She glanced up at him, smiling with irresponsible eyes. Then she lapped the water with her feet, and surveyed her pink toes. She was absurdly, childishly happy.

“Why should we?” she asked lightly.

He watched her. Her child-like indifference to con- sequences touched him with a sense of the distance between them. He himself might play with the delicious warm surface of life, but always he recked of the relentless mass of cold beneath—the mass of life which has no sympathy with the individual, no cognizance of him.

She loved the trifles and the toys, the mystery and the magic of things. She would not own life to be relentless. It was either beautiful, fantastic, or weird, or unscrutable, or else mean and vulgar, below con- sideration. He had to get a sense of the anemone and a sympathetic knowledge of its experience, into his blood, before he was satisfied. To Helena an anemone was one more fantastic pretty figure in her kaleidoscope.

So she sat dabbling her pink feet in the water, quite unconscious of his gravity. He waited on her, since he never could capture her.

“Come,” he said very gently. “You are only six years old to-day.”

She laughed as she let him take her. Then she nestled up to him, smiling in a brilliant, child-like fashion. He kissed her with all the father in him sadly alive.

“Now put your stockings on,” he said. 6


text:
Page:The Trespasser, Lawrence, 1912.djvu/90

82 “But my feet are wet.” She laughed.

He kneeled down and dried her feet on his handkerchief, while she sat tossing his hair with her fingertips. The sunlight grew more and more golden.

“I envy the savages their free feet,” she said.

“There is no broken glass in the wilderness—or there used not to be,” he replied.

As they were crossing the sands, a whole family entered by the cliff track. They descended in single file, unequally, like the theatre: two boys, then a little girl, the father, another girl, then the mother. Last of all trotted the dog, warily, suspicious of the descent. The boys emerged into the bay with a shout; the dog rushed, barking, after them. The little one waited for her father, calling shrilly:

“Tiss can’t fall now, can she, dadda? Shall I put her down?”

“Ay, let her have a run,” said the father.

Very carefully she lowered the kitten which she had carried clasped to her bosom. The mite was bewildered and scared. It turned round pathetically.

“Go on, Tissie; you’re all right,” said the child. “Go on; have a run on the sand.”

The kitten stood dubious and unhappy. Then, perceiving the dog some distance ahead, it scampered after him, a fluffy, scurrying mite. But the dog had already raced into the water. The kitten walked a few steps, turning its small face this way and that, and mewing piteously. It looked extraordinarily tiny as it stood, a fluffy handful, staring away from the noisy water, its thin cry floating over the plash of waves.

Helena glanced at Siegmund, and her eyes were


text:
Page:The Trespasser, Lawrence, 1912.djvu/91

Rh shining with pity. He was watching the kitten and smiling.

“Crying because things are too big, and it can’t take them in,” he said.

“But look how frightened it is,” she said.

“So am I.” He laughed. “And if there are any gods looking on and laughing at me, at least they won’t be kind enough to put me in their pinafores….”

She laughed very quickly.

“But why?” she exclaimed. “Why should you want putting in a pinafore?”

“I don’t,” he laughed.

On the top of the cliff they were between two bays, with darkening blue water on the left, and on the right gold water smoothing to the sun. Siegmund seemed to stand waist-deep in shadow, with his face bright and glowing. He was watching earnestly.

“I want to absorb it all,” he said.

When at last they turned away:

“Yes,” said Helena slowly; “one can recall the details, but never the atmosphere.”

He pondered a moment.

“How strange!” he said. “I can recall the atmossphereatmosphere [sic], but not the detail. It is a moment to me, not a piece of scenery. I should say the picture was in me, not out there.”

Without troubling to understand—she was inclined to think it verbiage—she made a small sound of assent.

“That is why you want to go again to a place, and I don’t care so much, because I have it with me,” he concluded.


text: The Trespasser/Chapter 10

title: The Trespasser/Chapter 10


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/435

I] even of the tribe of Simeon, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred.

Of the cliildren of Gad, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Gad, were forty and five thousand six hundred and fifty.

Of the children of Judah, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Judah, were threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred.

Of the children of Issachar, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Issachar, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred.

Of the children of Zebulun, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/436

Rh years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Zebulun, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred.

Of the children of Joseph, namely, of the children of Ephraim, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Ephraim, were forty thousand and five hundred.

Of the children of Manasseh, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Manasseh, were thirty and two thousand and two hundred.

Of the children of Benjamin, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Benjamin, were thirty and five thousand and four hundred.

Of the children of Dan, by their generations, after


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/437

I] their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Dan, were threescore and two thousand and seven hundred.

Of the children of Asher, by their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Asher, were forty and one thousand and five hundred.

Of the children of Naphtali, throughout their generations, after their families, by the house of their fathers, according to the number of the names, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war; those that were numbered of them, even of the tribe of Naphtali, were fifty and three thousand and four hundred. These are those that were numbered, which Moses and Aaron numbered, and the princes of Israel, being twelve men: each one was for the house of his fathers. So were all those that were numbered of the children of Israel, by the house of their fathers, from twenty years old and upward, all that were able to go forth to war in Israel;


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/438

Rh even all they that were numbered were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty.

But the Levites after the tribe of their fathers were not numbered among them. For the Lord had spoken unto Moses, saying, Only thou shalt not number the tribe of Levi, neither take the sum of them among the children of Israel: but thou shalt appoint the Levites over the tabernacle of testimony, and over all the vessels thereof, and over all things that belong to it: they shall bear the tabernacle, and all the vessels thereof; and they shall minister unto it, and shall encamp round about the tabernacle. And when the tabernacle setteth forward, the Levites shall take it down: and when the tabernacle is to be pitched, the Levites shall set it up: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. And the children of Israel shall pitch their tents, every man by his own camp, and every man by his own standard, throughout their hosts. But the Levites shall pitch round about the tabernacle of testimony, that there be no wrath upon the congregation of the children of Israel: and the Levites shall keep the charge of the tabernacle of testimony. And the children of Israel did according to all that the Lord commanded Moses, so did they.

the Lord spake unto Moses and unto Aaron,


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/439

II] saying, Every man of the children of Israel shall pitch by his own standard, with the ensign of their father's house: far off about the tabernacle of the congregation shall they pitch. And on the east side toward the rising of the sun shall they of the standard of the camp of Judah pitch throughout their armies: and Nahshon the son of Amminadab shall be captain of the children of Judah. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were threescore and fourteen thousand and six hundred. And those that do pitch next unto him shall be the tribe of Issachar: and Nethaneel the son of Zuar shall be captain of the children of Issachar. And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and four thousand and four hundred. Then the tribe of Zebulun: and Eliab the son of Helon shall be captain of the children of Zebulun. And his host, and those that were numbered thereof, were fifty and seven thousand and four hundred. All that were numbered in the camp of Judah were an hundred thousand and fourscore thousand and six thousand and four hundred, throughout their armies. These shall first set forth.

On the south side shall be the standard of the camp of Reuben according to their armies: and the captain of the children of Reuben shall be Elizur the son of Shedeur. And his host, and those that were numbered


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/440

Rh thereof, were forty and six thousand and five hundred. And those which pitch by him shall be the tribe of Simeon: and the captain of the children of Simeon shall be Shelumiel the son of Zurishaddai. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were fifty and nine thousand and three hundred. Then the tribe of Gad: and the captain of the sons of Gad shall be Eliasaph the son of Reuel. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were forty and five thousand and six hundred and fifty. All that were numbered in the camp of Reuben were an hundred thousand and fifty and one thousand and four hundred and fifty, throughout their armies. And they shall set forth in the second rank.

Then the tabernacle of the congregation shall set forward with the camp of the Levites in the midst of the camp: as they encamp, so shall they set forward, every man in his place by their standards.

On the west side shall be the standard of the camp of Ephraim according to their armies: and the captain of the sons of Ephraim shall be Elishama the son of Ammihud. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were forty thousand and five hundred. And by him shall be the tribe of Manasseh: and the captain of the children of Manasseh shall be Gamaliel the son of Pedahzur. And his host,


text:
Author:Matthew the Evangelist

Works

 * Gospel of Matthew

Works about Matthew

 * "Matthew," in A Dictionary of the Book of Mormon, by George Reynolds

title: Author:Matthew the Evangelist


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/441

II] and those that were numbered of them, were thirty and two thousand and two hundred. Then the tribe of Benjamin: and the captain of the sons of Benjamin shall be Abidan the son of Gideoni. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were thirty and five thousand and four hundred. All that were numbered of the camp of Ephraim were an hundred thousand and eight thousand and an hundred, throughout their armies. And they shall go forward in the third rank.

The standard of the camp of Dan shall be on the north side by their armies: and the captain of the children of Dan shall be Ahiezer the son of Ammishaddai. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were threescore and two thousand and seven hundred. And those that encamp by him shall be the tribe of Asher: and the captain of the children of Asher shall be Pagiel the son of Ocran. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were forty and one thousand and five hundred.

Then the tribe of Naphtali: and the captain of the children of Naphtali shall be Ahira the son of Enan. And his host, and those that were numbered of them, were fifty and three thousand and four hundred. All they that were numbered in the camp of Dan were an hundred thousand and fifty and seven thousand


text: Author:Celsus

title: Author:Celsus


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/442

Rh and six hundred. They shall go hindmost with their standards.

These are those which were numbered of the children of Israel by the house of their fathers: all those that were numbered of the camps throughout their hosts were six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty. But the Levites were not numbered among the children of Israel; as the Lord commanded Moses. And the children of Israel did according to all that the Lord commanded Moses: so they pitched by their standards, and so they set forward, every one after their families, according to the house of their fathers.

also are the generations of Aaron and Moses in the day that the Lord spake with Moses in mount Sinai. And these are the names of the sons of Aaron; Nadab the firstborn, and Abihu, Eleazar, and Ithamar. These are the names of the sons of Aaron, the priests which were anointed, whom he consecrated to minister in the priest's office. And Nadab and Abihu died before the Lord, when they offered strange fire before the Lord, in the wilderness of Sinai, and they had no children: and Eleazar and Ithamar ministered in the priest's office in the sight of Aaron their father.

And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Bring the tribe of Levi near, and present them before Aaron


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/443

III] the priest, that they may minister unto him. And they shall keep his charge, and the charge of the whole congregation before the tabernacle of the congregation, to do the service of the tabernacle. And they shall keep all the instruments of the tabernacle of the congregation, and the charge of the children of Israel, to do the service of the tabernacle. And thou shalt give the Levites unto Aaron and to his sons: they are wholly given unto him out of the children of Israel. And thou shalt appoint Aaron and his sons, and they shall wait on their priest's office: and the stranger that cometh nigh shall be put to death. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, And I, behold, I have taken the Levites from among the children of Israel instead of all the firstborn that openeth the matrix among the children of Israel: therefore the Levites shall be mine; because all the firstborn are mine; for on the day that I smote all the firstborn in the land of Egypt I hallowed unto me all the firstborn in Israel, both man and beast: mine shall they be: I am the Lord.

And the Lord spake unto Moses in the wilderness of Sinai, saying, Number the children of Levi after the house of their fathers, by their families: every male from a month old and upward shalt thou number them. And Moses numbered them according to


text:
Author:Porphyry

Works

 * Against the Christians (Adversus Christianos)
 * Aids to the Study of the Intelligibles (Sententiæ ad Intelligibilia Ducentes)
 * Introduction to the Categories (Introductio in Prædicamenta or Isagoge)
 * Isagoge trans. 1853 by Octavius Freire Owen
 * "On the Cave of the Nymphs" (De Antro Nympharum)
 * Life of Plotinus, translated by Stephen MacKenna (1910)

Collected works

 * Select Works of Porphyry: Containing His Four Books On Abstinence from Animal Food; His Treatise on The Homeric Cave of the Nymphs; and his Auxiliaries to the Perception of Intelligible Natures. Translated by Thomas Taylor. (1823)

title: Author:Porphyry


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/444

Rh the word of the Lord, as he was commanded. And these were the sons of Levi by their names; Gershon, and Kohath, and Merari. And these are the names of the sons of Gershon by their families; Libni, and Shimei. And the sons of Kohath by their families; Amram, and Izehar, Hebron, and Uzziel. And the sons of Merari by their families; Mahli, and Mushi.

These are the families of the Levites according to the house of their fathers. Of Gershon was the family of the Libnites, and the family of the Shimites: these are the families of the Gershonites. Those that were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, even those that were numbered of them were seven thousand and five hundred. The families of the Gershonites shall pitch behind the tabernacle westward. And the chief of the house of the father of the Gershonites shall be Eliasaph the son of Lael. And the charge of the sons of Gershon in the tabernacle of the congregation shall be the tabernacle, and the tent, the covering thereof, and the hanging for the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and the hangings of the court, and the curtain for the door of the court, which is by the tabernacle, and by the altar round about, and the cords of it for all the service thereof.

And of Kohath was the family of the Amramites,


text:
Page:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha.djvu/445

III] and the family of the Izeharites, and the family of the Hebronites, and the family of the Uzzielites: these are the families of the Kohathites. In the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, were eight thousand and six hundred, keeping the charge of the sanctuary. The families of the sons of Kohath shall pitch on the side of the tabernacle southward. And the chief of the house of the father of the families of the Kohathites shall be Elizaphan the son of Uzziel. And their charge shall be the ark, and the table, and the candlestick, and the altars, and the vessels of the sanctuary wherewith they minister, and the hanging, and all the service thereof. And Eleazar the son of Aaron the priest shall be chief over the chief of the Levites, and have the oversight of them that keep the charge of the sanctuary.

Of Merari was the family of the Mahlites, and the family of the Mushites: these are the families of Merari. And those that were numbered of them, according to the number of all the males, from a month old and upward, were six thousand and two hundred. And the chief of the house of the father of the families of Merari was Zuriel the son of Abihail: these shall pitch on the side of the tabernacle northward. And under the custody and charge of the sons of Merari shall be the boards of the tabernacle, and the


text:
User:RexRowan

Hi

title: User:RexRowan