had not Eusebius as good a right to interpret the duoоúσ105 for himself, as Athanasius, or Alexander, or other persons had, to put their sense upon it? The disputants were engaged in a wroμaxía, a night-skirmish, as Socrates justly calls it, and Eusebius seems to have been willing to comply with the Consubstantialists as far as he could, and to interpret the Nicene creed in such a manner as to make it acceptable to the Arians; and the difference, at that time, between the two parties, was of such a kind that it was not easy to be exactly determined. Le Clerc had a dispute with Cave, whom he charged with writing the Lives of the Fathers like a panegyrist, and not as an impartial historian, and with vindicating the orthodoxy of Eusebius, who, as Cave said, was a Consubstantialist, and, as Le Clerc affirmed, was an Arian. Amongst other things, Le Clerc complains that certain. divines were far more favourable to the antient fathers than to modern writers, and would excuse in the former what they would condemn in the latter; and in this there was too much truth. If any one had said to those patrons of Eusebius, You affirm that Eusebius was orthodox, and I grant it will you then permit me to use the same language, and to speak upon the subject as he did? certain I am that he could not have obtained their consent, or escaped their severest censures and indignation. 6 : Although Eusebius made no difficulty to acknowledge in the Nicene council, that the Son of God was before all ages, and clearly rejected the impiety of Arius, who said that he was made out of nothing, and that there was a time when he was not, yet was he very unwilling to admit the word Consubstantial, that is, to acknowledge that the Son is of the same substance with the Father; and when he assented to this word, he gave it a sense which will not establish the coëquality of the Son, since in a letter which he wrote to his own church, to give them an account of his conduct, he speaks thus: "When it is said that the Son is consubstantial with the Father, the meaning is only that the Son hath no resemblance to the creatures which were made by him, but hath a perfect resemblance to his Father, of whom he was begotten, and not from any other hypostasis or substance."-If one might justify Eusebius VOL. II. R concerning the divinity of the Son, yet it would be difficult to defend his notions concerning the Holy Ghost: for in his Preparatio, and Demonstratio, and Eccles. Theol. he affirms that he is not truly God. "The Holy Spirit," says he," is neither God nor Son of God, because he hath not his origin from the Father, like the Son, but is of the number of the things which have been made by the Son." This shows that Socrates, Sozomen, and some modern writers, have in vain endeavoured to excuse him entirely, and on the other hand that it is a great injustice to call him Arian, and head of the Arians, as Jerom hath done.Eusebius was not author of any new formularies of faith; he conducted no intrigues to ruin Athanasius and his partizans he would much rather have been instrumental in pacifying and re-uniting the two parties. I doubt not but that his many amiable qualities caused him to be set down in the number of saints in some antient martyrologies. It is true that he hath not remained in quiet possession of this title; but in my opinion it were a temerity to judge him absolutely unworthy of it.” Du Pin. ων Eusebius testifies that in his time there were some slender remains of miraculous gifts and powers. Speaking of the miracles of Christ, believed by Christians upon sufficient evidence, he adds, εξήτασται παρ' ἡμῖν καὶ βεβασάνισται καὶ δι ̓ ἑτέρων πραγμάτων ἐναργῶν-δι ̓ ὧν αὐτὸς ὁ Κύριος ἡμῶν εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν οἷς ἂν κρίνειεν, μικρά τινα τῆς αὐτοῦ δυνάμεως παραβαίνειν εἴωθε. Exquisita sane hæc a nobis explorataque sunt, aliis quoque evidentibus rebus-quibus ipse Dominus noster etiam nunc iis quos dignos putaverit, exigua quædam suæ virtutis signa ostendere consueverit.' Dem. Ev. iii. p. 109. Τίς δὲ οὐκ οἶδεν ὅπως σὺν αὐτῇ τῇ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ προσηγορία, καὶ σὺν εὐχαῖς καθαρωτάταις πᾶν τὸ δαιμόνων ἔργον ἀπελαύνειν ἡμῖν φίλον ἐστίν;—εἰσέτι δεῦρο πᾶς δαίμων καὶ πᾶν ἀκάθαρτον πνεῦμα, ὥς τι τῶν κολαστικῶν καὶ βασανιστικῶν τῆς οἰκείας φύσεως, τοῦ Ἰησοῦ τὸ ὄνομα φρίττει, υπεξίσταταί τε καὶ παραχωρεῖ τῇ τῆς προσηγορίας δυνάμει. Quis autem ignorat nostræ esse consuetudinis, ipso Jesu nomine, et purissimis precibus omnem dæmonum vexationem abigere? Hodie quoque omnis damon, onunisque impurus spiritus ita Jesu nomen exhorret, ut unum aliquid eorum quæ ipsius naturam castigandi ac torquendi vim habeat, au fertque se illico, et concedit: tantam sentit illius nominis vim.' Dem. Ev. iii. p. 132. • Constantia, the sister of Constantine, wrote to Eusebius, to desire him to send her a certain image, which was supposed to be the image of Jesus Christ; for Eusebius himself tells us, that in his time there were to be seen pictures of our Saviour, of St. Peter, and of St. Paul, and that he had seen at Paneas a statue of Christ, which the woman was said to have erected who had been cured by him of a bloody-flux. Eusebius returned an answer to Constantia, of which we have only some fragments remaining. It appears that he would not send it to her; but as to the reasons for his refusal, it is not easy to comprehend the solidity of them. All that can be said is, that he endeavours to take her off from contemplating the human nature of Christ, and to induce her rather to consider his divinity. But he seems to go so far as to say that his humanity had ceased after his ascent into heaven, and he hath been accused of entertaining this opinion. 'The enemies of holy images have made use of this letter, and they who have refuted them have allowed it to be genuine, but maintain that it was of no authority and weight, as coming from an Arian. It is certain that Eusesebius seems not much to approve the use of images; and yet himself gives us reason to think that God approved of them, when he speaks of the miracles which were said to be wrought by the statue of Christ that was at Paneas; for he dares not maintain that what was related concerning it was false.' Tillemont, H. E. vii. 43. Eusebius relates the story of the statue at Paneas as an historian, and gives it with an Ayov, as a thing generally believed. He adds, for the sake of those who had ears to hear, that the Gentiles, who received miraculous favours from Christ or from his apostles, might, in all probability, have honoured their benefactors by making statues and pictures of them, ἀπαραφυλάκτως, ἐθνικὴ συνηθεία, indiscreetly and according to Pagan custom ;' which shows that he was no friend to holy images and to image-worship, and that he foresaw the bad use which would soon be made of these representations. E. H. vii. 18. See also S. Basnage, Ann. i. 307. Nicephorus reviles Eusebius as an enemy to holy images, as an Arian, and worse than an Arian, on account of this wicked letter of his to Constantia. Le Clerc, Bibl. A. et M. xxiv. 3. The second general council of Constantinople, assembled by Constantine, whom the image-mongers impudently called Copronymus, had condemned images, and had made use of a passage from the history of the apostle St. John by Leucius, of which here is the substance: A Christian, called Lycomedes, had got a portrait made of this apostle, who seeing a picture in the house of his disciple, and not knowing whom it represented, said to Lycomedes, What is the meaning of this image, and for whom of your gods is it made? I see that you have not yet entirely renounced the customs of the Gentiles. Lycomedes answered, I acknowledge only one God, namely, him who hath restored life to me and to my wife. But if, after that God, one may call Gods those good men who are our benefactors, you yourself are the God whom that image represents. It is you whom I crown, it is you whom I love, and whom I honour, as the faithful guide who hath conducted me to the source of all blessings. You banter me, my son, said St. John, you are not in earnest, and you cannot make me believe that this is my picture. Then Lycomedes having reached a looking-glass, gave it to St. John, who discerning his own countenance, and comparing it with the picture: As the Lord liveth said he, it is true that this image resembles me; but, my son, you have done a wrong thing. The bishops of the second Nicene council inveigh, as we may suppose, against the author of this relation, and against those who had dared to make use of it. And indeed the witness was good for nothing; he was a heretic and an impostor. But as to the story itself, there is nothing in it contrary to the apostolical spirit, or to the faith and practice of the antient church. If it be not true, it carries no small appearance of truth, and nothing brings it into suspicion but the relater. That is more than can be said of a heap of authorities and testimonies urged by these Nicene bishops, where the facts are evidently false, the books certainly spurious, and the authors most impudent and audacious liars. This will appear a little rough, but it is very true, and there is no occasion to use any ceremony with such disingenuous and dishonest men.' 'Beausobre, Hist. de Man. i. 389. See also Fleury, H. E. t. ix. p. 543. Eusebius subjoined to his Ecclesiastical History, an Oration of Constantine. It was composed in Latin by the emperor, and translated into Greek by a very bad hand. It is also full of faults: tot mendis inquinata est,' says Valesius, ut pene satius fuerit eam non extare.' The Pagans, says Constantine in this Oration, may be convinced of the divinity of Jesus Christ, εἴπερ τοῖς ἑαυτῶν λόγοις πιστεύωσιν. 'Si quidem suorum sermonibus fidem velint adhibere.' He appeals to the testimony of the Erythræan Sibyl, and therefore I believe it should be τοῖς ἑαυτῶν λογίοις if they will give credit to their own oracles.' c. 18. THUS much concerning Eusebius; to which it may be proper to join a few remarks on the ecclesiastical historians who are his usual companions, Socrates, Sozomen, &c. Reading, in his edition of the ecclesiastical historians, has joined to the notes of Valesius such observations of modern authors as he had picked up here and there. They might as well have been placed at the end of the book, since they are much inferior to those of Valesius, both for style and matter, and appear with the same disadvantage as an ordinary painting placed by the work of an eminent master. • Valesius dedicated his work to the clergy of France, from whom he had a pension. He was sadly afraid of offending certain persons, who hold this maxim, That when an opinion serves to support a good cause, it may be piously believed, and it must not be attacked, be it ever so false and foolish.' Le Clerc Bibl. A. et M. t. xvi. The misfortune is, that these certain persons are to be found, and |