The Church History.

        Eusebius had already begun using the Caesarea library when, about 303, he prepared the first edition of his Chronicle. In it he made use of writings by Philo, Jose phus, Justin, Tatian, The 0philus, Irenaeus, Tertulhan, Julius Africanus, Clement, and Origen. All these authors are mentioned again in the first edition of his Church History (Books i-vii), completed soon afterwards. The Chronicle provided a skeleton for the Church History, which is more a history of early Christian literature than a real history either of deeds or of thought. In it there are references to the writings of about thirty-five Christian authors, in addition to lists of the writings of Philo (ii. 18) and Josephus (iii. 9).

        For the early church Eusebius could use the supposedly genuine correspondence of bgar, king of Edessa, with Jesus (i. 13) as well as some writings by the Apostolic Fathers Clement, seven letters by Ignatius and one by Polycarp, the Shepherd of Hernias, and the Interpretations ofthe Dominical Oracles by Papias (whom, on theological grounds, he referred to date a little later). It is not at all clear that he knew either the Didache or the Letter of Barnabas. From the period a little later he could quote an excerpt from the apology by Quadratus and mention that by Aristides (iv. 3); he knew a “letter of Pilate” (ii. 2) and the letters of Pliny and Trojan, but only from the Apology of Tertullian (iii. 3 3). In the library there was a bound volume containing the acts of various martyrs — Polycarp, Pionius, Corpus with Papylus and Agathonice (iv. 15- 46-48)-and to it Eusebius himself added the account of the Gallican martyrs (v. praef. 2; v. 4. 3).

        Much of his information about the later second century was derived from extensive collections already made. These included the writings of Justin (iv. 18), Dionysius of Corinth (iv. 23), Theophilus of Antioch (iv. 24), Melito of Sardis (iv. 26), Apollinaris of Hierapolis (iv. 27), Tatian (iv. 29), and Bardesanes (iv. 30). He lists the works of all of these and insists that he has listed Justin's to “urge scholars to a diligent regard for his books” (iv. 8. 10). Rhetoricians were aware that such bibliographies, if simply derived from library catalogues, could give an incorrect impression of erudition,[102] and some of Eusebius’ comments suggest thet he knew little or nothing about the contents of the books he list. From the end of the second century and the beginning of the third he seems to have a few dossiers of controversial writings — against Montanists (v. I6-I9), works by Irenaeus (v. 20 and 26), on the paschal controversy (v. z 3), miscellaneous documents (v. 27-28), and works by Serapion of Antioch (vi. 12).

        When he reaches the Christian teachers of Alexandria he is much better informed-as one would expect in view of the origins of the libraries. He lists the works of Clement (vi. 13) and Origen (vi. z4-z5, 32, 36),[103] and knows so many writings by Dionysius of Alexandria that he has to scatter quotations through-out the sixth and seventh books. With the earlier Alexandrians he associates three letters by Alexander of Jerusalem (vi. 11 and 14) and some works by Hippolytus (vi. zz) and Julius Africanus (vi. 31), since these men were associated with Origen. The sources he quotes in the seventh book include works by Dionysius, a rescript of the emperor Gallienus, a dossier of the proceedings against Paul of Samosata,[104] and an excerpt from the paschal canons by Anatolius of Laodicea.

        The Church History is thus useful chiefly because of the excerpts it provides and because of the lost works it lists. It is little more than a literary chronicle. There is no attempt to explain either literary movements or historical events. Indeed, Eusebius prefatory discussion of his plan shows how limited his range was. He intended to discuss (1) lists of apostolic successions among the bishops, (2) important events and the leaders in them, (3) famous teachers and writers, (4) heretics, (5) the disasters that came upon the Jewish nation after the crucifixion, (6) the war of the heathen against the divine word, along, with the noble martyrs, and (7)-a later addition-martyrdoms in his own time. In addition, he says, he planned to pluck passages from the meadows of Christian literature (thus producing a “florilegium” or anthology) and to “indicate what church writers in each period have made use of which of the disputed books” of the New Testament “and what they have said about the canonical and acknowledged books, and anything they have said about those that are not such” (iii. 3. 3).

        The result of such a chaotic plan is about what one would expect, especially since Eusebius quotes from none of the heretical writers whose heresies he discusses. Sometimes he is completely inconsistent, as when he places Hegesippus-one of his chief authorities for the early period-in “the first succession from the apostles” (ii. 23. 3), in the reign of Hadrian, 117-138 (iv. 8. 2), and in the last third of the second century (iv. 21). Longevity cannot account for this confusion. W. Telfer has shown that only the last date is right.[105] In addition, because of his lack of information or interest there are surprising gaps in his account. He knows nothing of the apologist Athenagoras and little about the apologies of Tatian and Theophilus. He has no idea where Hip polytus lived. From Tertullian he has only the Apology and he does not seem to have read anything by Cyprian (vi. 43. 3). It is especially unfortunate that he was so little concerned with the history of Christian thought. When he says that Bardesanes “did not completely cleanse himself from the filth of the old heresy” of the Valentinians (iv. 30. 3), we have not been told a great deal.