the most eligible limit to his Ecclesiastical History. For in that synod, the contentions seemed not so much appeased as renewed; and that not through any fault of the synod itself, but by the pertinacity of those who refused to acquiesce in the very salutary decrees of that venerable assembly.

Having said thus much relative to the life and writings of Eusebius, it remains to make some remarks in reference to the orthodoxy of his faith. Let not the reader, however, here expect from us a defence, nor even any opinion of our own, but rather the judgment of the church and of the ancient fathers concerning him. Wherefore certain points shall be here premised, as preliminary propositions, relying on which, we may arrive at the greater certainty relative to the faith of Eusebius. As the opinions of the ancients concerning Eusebius, are various, since some have termed him a Catholic, others a heretic, others a diyλwTrov,* a person of a double tongue, or wavering faith, it is incumbent on us to inquire to which opinion we should chiefly assent. Of the law it is an invariable rule, to adopt, in doubtful cases, the more lenient opinion as the safer alternative. Besides, since all the westerns, St. Jerome excepted, have entertained honourable sentiments relative to Eusebius, and since the Gallican church has enrolled him in the catalogue of saints, it is undoubtedly better to assent to the judgment of our own [the western] 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 the 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 them, Eusebius does not want those, Socrates § and Gelasius Cyzicenus || for example, who entertained a favourable opinion concerning him. But if the judgment of the Seventh Ecumenical 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 See Socrates, lib. i. c. xxiii.

+ As may be learned from Victorius Aquitanus, the Martyrology of Usuardus, and from others.

+ In Epist. Tertiâ ad Eliam Aqueleiensem et alios Episcopos Istri. § See his Defence of him, in book ii. chap. xxi.

De Synod, Nicænâ, book ii. chap. i.

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, undoubtedly, ought to have been made 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 certainly 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 arisen from the prejudice than the mature judgment of the council. The Greeks may assume the 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 ringleader of that faction? Can he be justly termed a ringleader 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 charged the Arians, when they said that the Son of God had not existed before he was begotten, with virtually denying in this way, his existence before his 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, notwithstanding, brands 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 ringleader 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, Eustathius, and Athanasius, the most strenuous advocates for the adoption of the term oμoovotos. 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 anything 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 oμoovσios.

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 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.† 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.

• Viz. ὁμοούσιος.

+ See Scaliger's Elench. Trihæres. chap. xxvii.; and book vi. de Emend. Temp. chap. i. near the end: and his Animadversions on Eusebius's Chronicle, page 8.

The evangelist Mark established 23. Xystus or Sixtus II.

THE

ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY,

BY

EUSEBIUS.

CHAPTER I.

THE ARGUMENT OF THE WORK.

AS it is my purpose to record the successions of the holy apostles, together with the times since our Saviour, down to the present, to recount how many and important transactions are said to have occurred in ecclesiastical history, what individuals in the most noted places eminently governed and presided over the church, what men also in their respective generations, whether with or without their writings, proclaimed the divine word; to describe the character, times and number of those who, stimulated by the desire of innovation, and advancing to the greatest errors, announced themselves leaders in the propagation of false opinions, like grievous wolves, unmercifully assaulting the flock of Christ; as it is my intention, also, to describe the calamities that swiftly overwhelmed the whole Jewish nation, in consequence of their plots against our Saviour; how often, by what means and in what times, the word of God has encountered the hostility of the nations; what eminent persons persevered in contending for it through those periods of blood and torture, beside the martyrdoms which have been endured in our own times: and after all, to show the gracious and benign interposition of our Saviour; these being proposed as the subjects of the present work, I shall go back to the very origin and the earliest intro

B