of such a council have so declared and determined, is not convincing: therefore it ought not to be expected, that men should confess and act, as if they were convinced. If you make use of any methods, beside those of rational arguments, to induce men to profess and act as you desire, you do what lies in your power to make them lie and prevaricate. So did this council of Nice.

It has been sometimes said, that they shew their moderation in their manner of speaking, concerning the sentence passed upon Arius. But I own I can discern no such thing. There may be art and dissimulation, but there is no real moderation, or sincere kindness in what they write. Whatever the sentence was, they approved of it: if it had not been agreeable to their mind, Constantine would not have banished Arius, or his adherents. Moreover, before the meeting of this council, Alexander and his synod had excommunicated Arius, and banished him from the city of Alexandria.

Thus this council of Nice introduced authority and force in the church, and the affairs of religion. Or, if authority had been introduced before, they now openly countenanced it, and gave it a farther sanction.'

This way of acting, may be supposed to have been the chief cause of the ruin of the Christian interest in the east. This and the like determinations of speculative doctrines, and the violent methods, by which they were enforced, may be reckoned to have paved the way for Mahometanism, more than any thing else. By these means ignorance, and hypocrisy, and tedious rituals, came to take place of honesty, true piety, and undissembled, spiritual, and reasonable worship and devotion.

In about three hundred years after the ascension of Jesus, without the aids of secular power, or church authority, the Christian religion spread over a large part of Asia, Europe, and Africa : and at the accession of Constantine, and convening the council of Nice, it was almost every where, throughout those countries, in a flourishing condition. In the space of another three hundred years, or a little more, the beauty of the Christian religion was greatly corrupted in a large part of that extent, its glory defaced, and its light almost extinguished. What can this be so much owing to, as to the determinations and transactions of the council of Nice, and the measures then set on foot, and followed in succeeding times?

These impositions poison the waters of the sanctuary at the very fountain. They require. the ministers of Christ, the officers of his church, to subscribe certain articles upon pain of heavy forfeitures and a subscription to these articles, whether believed or not, gives a right to preferment. If any subscribe what they are not satisfied about, and so enter into the service of the church (which is very likely to happen,) they gain and hold their offices by the tenure of hypocrisy. How can religion flourish in this way? Will the persons who have so subscribed, (without conviction, or against it,) be sincere and upright ever afterwards? Will they, upon all other occasions, speak the truth without fear or favour, who have once solemnly and deliberately prevaricated? and can others entirely confide in them? or can they heartily reverence them, as upright and disinterested men?

The temptation upon some occasions must be exceeding strong, and many specious things may be offered, to put a fair colour upon unrighteousness. Even an appearance of religion may concur with secular interest, to impose upon the mind, and lead to what is not to be justified. Has a person at great expence of study and labour qualified himself for the service of the church, with a sincere view of usefulness in an important station? how grievous must it be, to be after all disappointed and excluded! If any obstacles lie in the way, there is great danger of compliance, not quite consistent with duty and conscience, provided those bars cannot be removed.

The temptation may be still stronger to some, who are already settled in agreeable stations. How trying is this case! This was the case of Eusebius, bishop of Cæsarea; he was in a station of great honour and usefulness, beloved by his people, and they by him: moreover he might imagine, and reasonably, that his usefulness as an author, depended much upon his continuance in that station. Without the advantages which he there enjoyed, he could not carry on his various designs for composing useful books, which he hoped might be of extensive service to the Christian religion, in that and future times. Was not this a temptation to sign what he did not approve of?

I beg leave, however, to add here, that I would be cautious of condemning particular persons, whose circumstances I am not exactly acquainted with. Nor do I absolutely condemn Eusebius:

the reason is, that he was present at the drawing up of the Nicene Creed, and declared in what sense he understood the word consubstantial. This is an advantage which may not be allowed to all when they have not a liberty to explain themselves, it will cause a diversity of case.

a

Tillemont has these words: It was then, fear of banishment, and of the shame of having 'so illustrious an assembly the witness of their ignominy, that induced the Arians to make haste • to renounce the doctrines that had been condemned, to anathematize them, and subscribe the ⚫ consubstantial faith, after all the other bishops; being led by Eusebius of Nicomedia, to confess ' with the mouth the faith of the church, without having it in the heart, as the event shewed.' How can any man speak in this manner! how can any man triumph in the falls of his fellowcreatures, who has any respect for the Lord Jesus, any love of truth and sincerity, any tenderness of conscience, any sense of equity and goodness! Those Arians confessed with the mouth, and signed with the hand, what they did not believe. For that they are to be blamed. But how came they to do so? It was owing to a fear of ignominy and banishment. But why were they put in fear? Why was a law made to banish such as did not believe the consubstantial doctrine? They offended, who signed; it is allowed: and are they innocent, who laid before them a temptation to sign? Was there a necessity, that they should be required to sign, whether they believed or not? Can you shew any ground or authority from reason, or from Jesus Christ, whereby you are allowed or enjoined to require your brethren to sign certain speculative articles, whether they believe them or not? Nay, is not this quite contrary to the design and example of the Lord Jesus, who never proposed to men any arguments, but such as were suited to gain the judgment? and who, when many forsook him, who had followed him for a time, took that opportunity, to refer it to the choice of those who still stayed with him, whether "they also would go away ?"

If any pretend it to be of importance, that others should sign or profess certain doctrines, supposed by them to be true; I would answer, that sincerity is of yet greater importance. And you ought never to endeavour to secure the interest of speculative points, with the prejudice of what is of greater moment, honesty and integrity.

4. It remains, that when this council met, instead of deciding by their authority, and enforcing by worldly menaces or recompences, any speculative doctrines, they should rather have recommended forbearance and moderation to all parties.

They ought to have advised men to practise love and forbearance one to another, and should have intreated them, if there be any bowels and mercies," and for the love of Jesus, "to received one another in love," as the apostle says, "but not to doubtful disputations: that is, to own each other for brethren, and communicate together as Christians, notwithstanding some differences of opinion. Or, if any could not persuade themselves to do this, that yet they should allow each other full liberty to profess their principles, and carry on their worship, according to their own sentiments, in their religious assemblies, in their own way. This at least they should have recommended, and with the utmost earnestness, as altogether reasonable, agreeable to the gospel, and absolutely necessary for the honour of the Christian name. And they should have humbly recommended it the emperor, to take care accordingly, and in his great wisdom to provide, that all who acted peaceably should be protected, in the several cities, where they dwelt: and that all who caused tumults and disturbances, or by any outward act infringed the liberty of their neighbours, on account of diversity of opinion, should be restrained and punished, as the nature of their offence required.

Possibly some may say, that such thoughts as these are founded upon the experience and observation of later ages; and that all this is more than could be reasonably expected of any men, however wise, at that time.

To which I answer, that it is no more than might have been expected: for it is not more than what men are taught by the common principles of equity. The gospel too, teaches and enacts moderation and forbearance, and condemns all imposition on the consciences of men, and all force and violence in things of religion.

Farther, what has been here suggested, is no more than what the Christians had before demanded and expected of heathens in power, as just and reasonable; they were therefore selfcondemned in acting otherwise. If it was reasonable, that they should be tolerated and pro

• Le Concile de Nicée, Art. x. near the end. Mem. Tom. vi.

с

* Philip. ii. 2.

d Rom, xiv. 1,

b John vi. 67.

tected by heathen emperors; much more was it reasonable and evident, that all other sects of Christians should be tolerated and protected by that sect which happened to be the most numerous and powerful.

Finally, for the main part, this is no other than the advice sent by Constantine, in his letter to Alexander and Arius, which the bishops assembled in council should have stood to. Nothing could have been more for their honour, and the interest of religion, than for them to have enforced with all their credit, the sage, and pious, and moderate counsels of the emperor.

I have taken all this freedom, thus to propose these thoughts. But I do not mention them so much by way of blame and censure, as with a view of amendment; that Christians in general may at length be so wise, as to consult the true interest of their religion: and hoping, that they who are in high stations in the church, and have a powerful influence, will improve all opportunities, and use their best endeavours, that "the moderation of Christians may be known unto all men."

CHAP. LXXII.

EUSEBIUS, BISHOP OF CÆSAREA.

1

LA brief account of his life. II. His works. III. General remarks upon his works. IV. Whether he was an Arian? V. His character. VI. Select passages. VII. Four passages concerning the books of the New Testament. VIII. Remarks upon those passages. IX. Books of the New Testament received by Eusebius himself. X. Of the controverted and spurious writings mentioned by him. XI. The time of writing St. Matthew's gospel, according to Eusebius. XII. The language of St. Matthew's gospel, and of the epistle to the Hebrews. XIII. Various readings. XIV. Of the canon of the Old Testament, received by this writer. XV. General divisions of scripture. XVI. Respect for the scriptures. XVII. The sum of his testimony.

I. EUSEBIUS bishop of Cæsarea in Palestine,' says Jerom, ' a man most studious in the divine scriptures, and together with the martyr Pamphilus, very diligent in making a large collec⚫tion of ecclesiastical writers, published innumerable volumes, some of which are these: The Evangelical Demonstration in twenty books: The Evangelical Preparation, in fifteen books: Five books of the Theophanie: Ten books of Ecclesiastical History: Chronical Canons of 'universal history, and an Epitome of them: and Of the Difference between the Gospels: Ten • books upon Isaiah: Against Porphyry, who at the same time wrote in Sicily, thirty books as * some think, though I have never met with more than twenty: Topics in one book: An Apology 'for Origen in six books: The Life of Pamphilus, in three books: Several small Pieces concerning the Martyrs: most learned Commentaries upon the 150 Psalms, and many other works. He flourished chiefly under the emperors Constantine and Constantius. On account of his friendship with the martyr Pamphilus he received his surname from him.' Eusebius, as is generally thought, and with some good degree of probability, was born at

2

Vid. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. ii. c. 64. &c. et Socr. 1. i. c. 7. b Philip. iv. 5.

Eusebius, Cæsarea Palæstina episcopus, in scripturis divinis studiosissimus, & bibliothecæ divinæ cum Pamphilo martyre diligentissimus pervestigator, edidit infinita volumina, de quibus hæc sunt: Ευα/γελικης Αποδείξεως libri viginti : Ευα/γελικής Προπαρασκευης libri quindecim: Θεοφάνιας libri quinque Ecclesiastica Historiæ libri decem: Chronicorum Canonum omnimoda historia, & eorum Emiloμy: Et de Evangeliorum Diaphoniâ: In Isaïam libri decem: Et contra Porphyrium, qui eodem tempore scribebat in Siciliâ, ut quidam patant, libri triginta, de quibus ad me viginti tantum pervenerunt : Τοπικων liber unus: Απολογίας pro Origene libri sex:

De Vita Pamphili libri tres: De Martyribus alia opuscula : Et in centum quinquaginta Psalmos eruditissimi commentarii, & multa alia. Floruit maxime sub Constantino imperatore & Constantio. Et ob amicitiam Pamphili martyris ab eo cognomentum sortitus est. Hieron. de V. I. c. 81.

That interpretation was justified formerly. See p. 116, 117. And it is the sense in which the words were always understood, till very lately. Says Valesius, speaking of Pamphilus: Qui cum literarum sacrarum singulari amore flagraret, omnesque ecclesiasticorum scriptorum libros summo studio conquireret, celeberrimam scholam ac bibliothecan instituit Cæsarea. De Vit. & Scriptis Euseb. Cæs. sub init.

a

C

b

Cæsarea in Palestine, about the year 270, or, as some think, sooner. We have no account of his parents, or who were his instructors in early life. Nor is there any thing certainly known of his family and relations: for Pamphilus, as is evident, was only a friend. Arius, in a letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, calls our Eusebius his brother. But I do not think, that the word ought to be understood literally. It is not common for two brothers to have one and the same name. Eusebius of Nicomedia, speaking of him of Cæsarea, calls him his lord. And the bishop of Cæsarea calls him of Nicomedia the great Eusebius: but neither says he was related to the other. Arius therefore, it is likely, gives our Eusebius the title of brother of the other Eusebius, as he also was bishop, and they were good friends, and so intimate, that they were both of the same opinion upon the doctrine controverted at that time.

g

e

d

It is somewhat probable, though not certain, that our Eusebius was ordained presbyter by Agapius, bishop of Cæsarea, of whom he has made a very honourable mention. He had a long and happy intimacy with Pamphilus, presbyter in that church, who was imprisoned in the year 307, and obtained the crown of martyrdom in 309. During the time of that imprisonment Eusebius was much with his friend. After the martyrdom of Pamphilus he went to Tyre, where he saw many finish their testimony to Jesus in a glorious manner. From thence, as it seems, he went into Egypt; where too he was a spectator of the sufferings and patience of many of his fellow-christians: where likewise he seems to have been imprisoned. And because he did not suffer, as some others did, it has been insinuated, that he procured his liberty by sacrificing or some other mean compliance, unbecoming a Christian. But that is a general accusation without ground. No one was ever able to specify any mean act of compliance in particular, as appears from Potamon's charge in Epiphanius. If Eusebius had sacrificed, or done any thing like it, he would not have been made bishop of Cæsarea, nor invited to the see of Antioch. Eusebius either made Pamphilus many visits, or was shut up with him in prison: and yet he has never been reproached, that I know of, because he did not suffer with him. In like manner he may have been for some time in prison in Egypt, and released without any thing dishonourable in the affair.

m

Agapius succeeded Theotecnus in the see of Cæsarea. And it is the more general opinion, that Eusebius succeeded Agapius in 315. But some place' But some place" Agricolaus between Agapius and him. Nevertheless that will not much protract the time of our author's episcopate. This is certain, that he was bishop of Cæsarea in 320 at the latest. After which we can perceive, that he was present at most of the synods held in that part of the world. He died in the year 339 or 340.

I omit many particulars, desiring to be as concise as possible. If we had Eusebius's life, written by his successor Acacius, we should have the pleasure to be informed of many things which we are now ignorant of.

.h Ib. c. 8, 9.

i Vid. Epiph. H. 67. n. 7. & Athan. Apol. contra Arian. p. 130. F.

* Vid. Euseb. in Cav. H. L. Basnag. Ann. 326. n. 18. Vales. de Vit. & Script. Euseb. p. 3. m. Du Pin, Eusébius de Césarée init. Martin. Hank. de Byzant. Hist. Scriptorib. in Vit. Euseb. cap. 120.

I cannot tell, whether it will not be thought too trifling to observe the conduct of the Benedictine editors of St. Athanasius upon this head. Athanasius having said in his Apology, that Eusebius of Cæsarea was accused by some confessors of having sacrificed, they put this note at the bottom

of p. 130. Epiphanius ait, Eusebium C. a Polemone Ægyptio objurgatum fuisse- -Quæ fusius in Athanasii vitâ agemus. But in their Vit. Ath. p. 21. having cited at length the passage of Epiphanius, they add: Non desunt tamen, qui Eusebium purgare curent a crimine vel suspicione oblati diis sacrificii. Verum nobis ad ulteriora properantibus hæc non licet subtilius explorare. But if Eusebius had been a favourite of theirs, I am apt to think, they would have stayed a while, to offer a word or two in defence of him. And were they not obliged by the fore-mentioned note to be a little more particular?

II. I must give some account of Eusebius's works: though, for the sake of brevity, I should have been very glad to be excused.

When an author's works are somewhat numerous, learned moderns generally speak in the first place of such as are still in being, then of those which are lost. The order of time pleaseth me best, in this instance at least. I therefore shall speak of Eusebius's writings, extant and not extant all together in the continued order of time, so far as I can attain it. And as I do not reckon myself obliged to give a particular account of all his pieces, mentioned in ancient authors, I refer to several learned moderns, some of which have treated largely of them.

1. An exact edition of Origen's Hexapla. This, so far as I recollect, is very seldom taken notice of by learned moderns in their accounts of Eusebius's works: but I think it should not have been omitted. It is likely, that it was one of our author's first undertakings. He had the assistance of Pamphilus in this work: which therefore we may suppose was finished about the year 306, before that excellent man and martyr came into trouble. I need say nothing of it here, having given an account of it formerly.

с

2. An Apology for Origen in six books: in five of which he had likewise the assistance of Pamphilus in prison. The sixth was written by Eusebius alone, after the martyrdom of Pamphilus. It was composed therefore in 308 and 309. The first book remains in a Latin translation of Rufinus: I spoke of this work formerly.

d

3. The Life of Pamphilus in three books, probably written in 309 or 310, but not extant. I have spoken sufficiently of it already.

4. A book of the Martyrs of Palestine, who suffered in the persecution of Dioclesian and Maximin, written about the year 311 or 312. This has been reckoned by some a part of the eighth book of the Ecclesiastical History: but Valesius has more properly placed it by itself, after that book, as a supplement to it.

5. Among Eusebius's Works Jerom mentioned several small pieces concerning the martyrs. And, as Tillemont observes, beside that just mentioned, there was another book, which Eusebius quotes several times in his Ecclesiastical History. It was a collection of the Acts of the ancient martyrs, wherein he had placed at length the history of the martyrs of Lyons in 'the time of Marcus Antoninus: Apollonius the Roman senator in the time of Commodus, with his Apology: The Acts of Pionius, martyred at Smyrna, and others.' But of this work, as h just hinted, Eusebius inserted several things, by way of extract at least, in his Ecclesiastical History. This collection may have been made in 312 or 313, or soon after.

6. One book against Hierocles, who had made a comparison of Apollonius Tyanæus with our Saviour Jesus Christ: a small piece, not mentioned by Jerom, but undoubtedly genuine, and still extant in the original Greek. It may have been composed in 312 or 313, or sooner; for we do not know the exact time.

7. A confutation of Porphyry in thirty books. Valesius was of opinion, that this work was not composed until after the Ecclesiastical History: because in the sixth book of that work, Eusebius quotes a passage of Porphyry's third book against the Christians, without taking notice of his own answer to him. But that argument does not appear to me decisive. Eusebius had many fair occasions in several of his writings to refer to his Confutation of Porphyry, but has never done so that I remember. Nevertheless we cannot hence conclude, that it was written after all his other works, which is very improbable. Jerom supposes, that Porphyry was living at the same time in Sicily; which is an argument, that he thought this one of our author's most early performances. If it was so, that may have been one reason why it was not much esteemed as being written before Eusebius had attained to all that maturity of knowledge and understanding, by which he was afterwards distinguished. For that reason too he might not be disposed to quote it himself. It is observable, that Apollinarius wrote against Porphyry after him: which may be reckoned an argument, that in this work Eusebius had not fully answered the expectation of the public. Nay, Philostorgius made no scruple to say, that' in his books against Por