fathers, than to that of the eastern schismatics. In short, whose authority ought to be more decisive in this matter than that of the bishops of Rome? But Galesius, in his work on the Two Natures, has recounted our Eusebius amongst the catholic writers, and has quoted two authorities out of his books. Pope Pelagius, too, terms him the most honourable amongst historians, and pronounces him to be free from every taint of heresy, notwithstanding he had highly eulogized heretical Origen. Some, however, may say, that since the easterns were better acquainted with Eusebius, a man of their own language, a preference should be given, in this case, to their judgment. Even amongst these, Eusebius does not want those, Socratest and Gelasius Cyzicenust for example, who entertained a favourable opinion concerning him. But if the judgment of the Seventh Oecumenical Synod be opposed to any inclination in his favour, our answer is ready. The faith of Eusebius was not the subject of that synod's debate, but the worship of images. In order to the subversion of which, when the opponents that had lately assembled in the imperial city, had produced evidence out of Eusebius's letter to Constantia, and laid the greatest stress thereon, the fathers of the Seventh Synod, to invalidate the authority of that evidence, exclaimed that Eusebius was an Arian. But this was done merely casually, from the impulse of the occasion, and hatred of the letter, not advisedly, or from a previous investigation of the charge. They produce some passages, it is true, from Eusebius, to insinuate that he was favourable to the Arian hypothesis; but they avoid all discrimination between what Eusebius wrote prior to the Nicene Council, and what he wrote afterwards, which, questionless, ought to have been done as essential to a just decision relative to Eusebius's faith. In short, nothing written by Eusebius before that synod is fairly chargeable in this respect, against him. Eusebius's letter to Alexander, containing his intercession with that prelate for Arius, was of course, written before that council. The affirmation, therefore, of the fathers of the Seventh Synod, notwithstanding it has the semblance of the highest authority, seems rather to have the character of temerity and premature judgment, than to be the verdict of a synod derived from a judicial investigation of the cause. The Greeks may assume the

* In Epist. Tertià ad Eliam Aqueleiensem et alios Episcopos Istri.

† Sec his Defence of him, in book 2. chap. 21.

De Synod. Nicænâ, book 2. chap. 1.

liberty to think as they please concerning Eusebius, and to term him an Arian, or a favourer of that heresy; but who can patiently endure St. Jerome, who, not content with calling him heretic and Arian, frequently terms him the ring-leader of that faction? Can he be justly termed a ring-leader of the Arians, who, after the Nicene Council, always condemned their opinions? Let his books De Ecclesiasticâ Theologiâ be perused, which he wrote against Marcellus long after the Nicene Council; and we shall find what we have affirmed, that he condemned those who asserted that the Son of God was made of things not existing; and that there was a time when he existed not. Athanasius, likewise, in his letter relative to the decrees of the Nicene Council, attests the same fact concerning Eusebius, in the following words: "In this, truly, he was unfortunate: that he might clear himself, however, of the imputation, he ever afterwards opposed the Arians, particularly since their denial of the pre-existence of the Son of God applied equally to his conception or incarnation." With this testimony, too, Eusebius was favoured by Athanasius, notwithstanding the personal differences between them. But St. Jerome, who had no cause of enmity against Eusebius, who had profited so liberally by his writings, who had translated his Chronological Canon, and his Book de Locis Hebraicis, into Latin, brands, notwithstanding, Eusebius with a calumny, which even his most malignant enemies never fastened on him. The reason of this we cannot conjecture, except it is, that St. Jerome, in consequence of his enmity to Origen, persisted in an unqualified persecution of all that maintained his opinions, particularly Eusebius.

On the other hand, we do not conceal the fact, that Eusebius, though he cannot be deservedly esteemed a ring-leader of the Arian faction, yet after the Nicene Council, was perpetually conversant with the principals of that party, and, together with them, opposed the catholic bishops, as Eustathius, and Athanasius, the most strenuous advocates for the adoption of the terms. Though Eusebius always asserted the eternity of the Son of God, against the Arians, yet in his disapproval of that word,* he seems censurable. It is certain that he never made use of that term, either in his books against Marcellus, or in his orations against Sabellius. Nay, in his Second Book against Sabellius, he expressly declares, that since that word is not in the Scriptures, it is not satisfactory to him. On this occasion,

he speaks to the following effect: "As not inquiring into truths which admit of investigation, is indolence, so prying into others, where the scrutiny is inexpedient, is audacity. Into what truths ought we then to search? Those which we find recorded in the Scriptures. But what we do not find recorded there, let us not search after. For had the knowledge of them been incumbent on us, the Holy Spirit would doubtless have placed them there." Shortly after, he says: "Let us not hazard ourselves in such a risk, but speak safely; and let not any thing that is written be blotted out." And in the end of his oration, he thus expresses himself: "Speak what is written, and the strife will be abandoned." In which passages, Eusebius, no doubt, alludes to the word 'oqueios.

Finally, we now advert to the testimonies of the ancients concerning Eusebius. Here one thing is to be observed, namely, however various the opinions of men have been, relative to the accuracy of the religious sentiments of Eusebius, all however, have unanimously esteemed him as a person of the most profound learning. To this we have to mention one solitary exception, Joseph Scaliger, who within the memory of our fathers, impelled by the current of temerity, and relish for vituperation, endeavoured to filch from Eusebius those literary honours, which even his adversaries never dared to impugn. Scaliger's words, we have inserted amongst the testimonies of the ancients, not as any proof of our value of his judgment on this point, but for the accommodation of those desirous of knowing them, and with the design that his unwarrantable detraction might meet with the exposure it deserved; who having resolved to write a commentary on the Chronological Canon of Eusebius, does not hesitate to arraign St. Jerome himself, because he speaks of Eusebius as a most learned character. On Scaliger's opinion, we had at first determined to bestow a more ample refutation; but this we shall defer, until more leisure on the one hand, or a more urgent claim on the part of the reader, on the other, shall again call our attention to the subject.

• See Scaliger's Elench. Trihares. chap. 27; and book 6 de Emend. Temp. chap. 1, about the end: and his Animadversions on Eusebius's Chronicle, page 8.

PREFACE BY THE TRANSLATOR.

WHEN the proposition was started, to issue a new translation of the present work, the question no doubt frequently arose, Cu bono? Have we not ecclesiastical histories enough, and do not these give us all the information that we can reasonably expect, presented too in a form and style which is not likely to be surpassed by any age? Many may here have thought of the judicious and learned Mosheim, or of the popular Milner, some perhaps of the voluminous Schrockh, and Fleury, whose researches. into primitive ages have condensed the labours of their predecessors. Some, indeed, who, in distinct and separate works, have confined their histories to the three first centuries of the church, as Mosheim in his Commentary de Rebus Christianis ante Constantinum, Walchii Historia Ecclesiastica Novi Testamenti, and others of less notoriety, might seem to preclude the necessity of any additional aids, or of recurring to the fountains whence they drew. But whatever be the superiority of modern ecclesiastical history, however justly it may represent the times recorded, it cannot give us the spirit of these times without the authors from which it is derived. It cannot, therefore, supersede the necessity of examining the same ground in the express statement of an original or primitive writer.

It will not, therefore, be pronounced an indifference to the superior literature of our own age, when we hold up to view a production of ages long passed away. Every age has its distinctive features, its advantages as well as defects; ours may, without arrogance, claim the character of more systematic precision in every department of learning. It has been reserved for this age, under Providence, by whose operations the human mind has attained an unprecedented expansion, to reduce the accumulated materials of

⚫ Schrockh has written an Ecclesiastical History in forty-two octavo, and Fleury in twenty quarto volumes; the former in German, the latter in French.