knowledge of antiquity. This was followed by the "Evangelical Demonstration," in twenty books, of which the first ten only are preserved. The Demonstration treats chiefly of the Jewish prophecies, which the author, conformably to the prevailing taste, generally interprets allegorically and mystically. The ten books of "Ecclesiastical History," commencing with the Founder of our faith, and terminating with the year 327, just before the assembling of the Council of Nice, may have followed. Appended to the eighth book of the History we have the "Martyrs of Palestine." The "Life of Constantine," the Letter to his people, preserved by Socrates and Theodoret, and the "Tricennial Oration," have been already mentioned as extant; to which we may add the work on "Hebrew Places," being a sort of historical and 'geographical dictionary of Palestine; Two Books against Marcellus; and one in reply to Hierocles, who had published an attack on Christianity, comparing Jesus Christ with Apollonius Tyanæus. He wrote, too, commentaries on several parts of the Scriptures, some of which are preserved.

Among his lost works, or works of which only parts, or fragments, or barely the titles are preserved, we may enumerate the "Life of Pamphilus," in three books; the "Apology for Origen," in six, of which the first only remains in the Latin translation of Jerome; Thirty Books against Porphyry, the loss of which is exceedingly to be regretted; the "Difference between the Gospels," designed probably to reconcile the discrepancies between the evangelical narratives, and Five Books on the Coming of Christ, both mentioned by Jerome; Commentaries on the Psalms, of which we have only a few fragments, pronounced by Jerome "most learned"; a Description of the Church, already referred to, at Jerusalem, with its ornaments, and the presents sent by the Emperor, dedicated to Constantine, and originally annexed to the "Life"; a "Treatise on Easter"; and several others, some of them of considerable magnitude, which it is unnecessary to enumerate.

His defences of Christianity partake of the defects of all his works, want of judgment and method. What Le Clerc has said of some of the ancient apologists, that they have "better refuted Paganism than demonstrated the truth of Christianity, and have mingled with good and solid reasons, proofs which appear of no weight when examined," is true of him. He has well refuted Paganism, but, like the old writers generally, he

13

relies in support of the truth of Christianity too much on fanciful expositions of the Old Testament.

He wrote, it will be perceived, upon some of the topics controverted among Christians, and particularly the Sabellian question, as in his books against Marcellus, in which he seems. not to have preserved throughout his usual candor and moderation. Upon the great controversy of the day, however, he appears to have been intentionally silent, nor was the result such as to afford him any pleasure in the retrospect. He was too favorably disposed towards the Arians to take any pleasure in the circumstance of their defeat. Whether or not he was himself an Arian, is a point which has been contested in ancient and modern times. It is one, however, the thorough examination of which would require more space than we can allow to a topic, on which our readers generally can be supposed to take no deep interest. We will therefore dismiss it with two or three remarks.

That Eusebius was not Orthodox, that is, a consubstantialist, in the sense in which Athanasius understood the term, especially in his later years, is absolutely certain. The word, as we have seen, was not of his choice, nor to his taste, for it might imply what he did not believe concerning the nature of the Son. As the Platonists had used it, however, and as it might be understood to mean, not a numerical, but only a specific sameness, that is, resemblance, in which sense the fathers of the council, who seem to have been not a little perplexed in their attempts to define it, allowed him to take it, he consented, as before said, to adopt it. But, in this sense, it by no means excluded inequality and subordination between the Father and the Son. In these he firmly believed; and, if such belief constituted Arianism, all antiquity, as it has been truly said, was Arian. But it does not; for it leaves undetermined the origin of the Son, who, as Arius contended, was called into being from nothing, while his opponents, the consubstantialists, insisted on saying that he was ineffably begotten. Thus a person might believe that the Son was, from the time when he was begotten before the ages, a distinct being from the Father, and inferior to him, without adopting the distinguishing dogma of the Arians. This might have been the case with Eusebius. At all events he was willing to promise, that he would not in future say with Arius that the Son was made out of nothing, but would conform to the popular phraseology, and say with the

homoousians, that he was ineffably begotten. This we suppose was the amount of his orthodoxy. He certainly never dreamed, any more than Origen, of whom he is known to have been a great admirer, of admitting the equality of the Father and Son in any legitimate sense of the term, and he seems to have placed the Spirit among the things made by the Son.

We believe Dr. Jortin to be nearly right, when he says, that Eusebius "seems to have been neither an Arian nor an Athanasian, but one who endeavoured to steer a middle course, yet inclining more to the Arians than to the Athanasians."* Athanasius, among the ancients, pronounces him an Arian; Jerome, "the prince of Arians;" and Nicephorus," an Arian, and worse than an Arian." Others expressed themselves in similar, though not all in equally strong terms. Among the moderns, Cave, in his Latin and English Lives, and especially in the Dissertation subjoined to the former, attempts unsuccessfully to defend his orthodoxy against Le Clerc, who expresses his surprise that there should be people who pretend to deny that Eusebius was an Arian, if they have read his works, especially in the original. Petavius has a formal argument to prove his Arianism. Du Pin, though he pronounces it great injustice to stigmatize him as an Arian, yet thinks it impossible to defend his orthodoxy, and confesses that it has been vainly attempted by Socrates, Sozomen, and "some modern writers." This we suppose is the prevailing sentiment on the subject.‡

Of Eusebius's general character as a man and a Christian, little needs be added to the incidental notices contained in the above sketch of his life. Those who have disapproved his opinions have united in ascribing to him all good qualities of

* Remarks on Ecclesiastical History, Vol. II. pp. 229, 230.

† Biblioth. Anc. et Mod., T. I. p. 270. "Mr. Cave," says Le Clerc, "étoit un homme accoûtumé non seulement à dissimuler, mais à dire le contraire de ce qu'il pensoit, par une mauvaise politique; ce qui a fait passer ses Histoires Ecclésiastiques pour des Légendes mitigées." Bibl. Anc. et Mod., T. I. c. iv. p. 19.

Those who wish to see more on the subject may consult among other works, Jortin's Remarks, Vol. II. pp. 229-242; Le Clerc's Second Epistle, contained in the 3d volume of his Ars Critica; Cave's Lives Latin and English, with the Dissertation; Le Clerc, Biblioth. A. et M., T. I. p. 170; Îv. 18; XVI. 80; XXVIII. 240; and Biblioth. Univ. et Hist., X. 479; Du Pin, Nouvelle Biblioth. art. Eusebius; and Petavius, Theol. Dogm., T. II. Lib. i. c. 11, 12. See also, "Veterum Testimonia pro Euseb. et contra Euseb.," which follow Valesius's Account of his Life and Writings, Reading's ed.

heart. His amiable disposition, his love of peace and quiet, his susceptibility to the tender emotions of friendship, hs general moderation and candor to those whose views placed them in opposition to him, have been universally admitted. He was no friend to creeds and formularies made to entrap or oppress an adversary, or discourage freedom of thought. He never, as Du Pin has well remarked, labored to destroy Athanasius, or ruin his partisans, though he could not number him with his friends. He never abused his credit with the emperor, to elevate himself, and to pull others down; but employed himself for the good and advantage of the church, endeavouring to promote a spirit of accommodation and reunite parties. He was never, we believe, accused of a grasping, avaricious disposition, but appears to have been content with a moderate fortune, and the enjoyment of the calm pleasures of a studious life.

We have hinted at the prominent defects of his literary character. He is immethodical and deficient in judgment. He had accumulated vast treasures by study and reading, but wanted the disposition and skill to select, arrange, combine, and adorn. He had not the art of easy and connected narration. His style is frequently rude and negligent, sometimes perplexed and confused, and sometimes, when he strives to be eloquent, turgid or loaded with puerile ornaments, never graceful, polished, or grand. He had a vigorous and active mind, but, like most of his contemporaries, and those who had lived during the preceding centuries, he had not been trained to a habit of severe reasoning, and he had read the finished productions of Grecian genius without imbibing one particle of true

taste.

But of his moral and intellectual qualities generally we have said enough. His character as an historian, however, merits further notice. He has collected and transmitted, as we have said, a multitude of facts and traditionary statements relating to the early condition and progress of our faith, and the character and writings of Christians, of which but for him no memorial had been now left. But the degree of credit to which he is entitled as an historian, may be regarded as a question not yet settled. This question we shall briefly discuss in a future Number.

Samuel for sile May

ART. V. Essays on the Principles of Morality, and on the Private and Political Rights and Obligations of Mankind. By JONATHAN DYMOND, Author of "An Inquiry into the Accordancy of War with the Principles of Christianity," &c. With a Preface by the Rev. GEORGE BUSH, M. A., Adjunct Professor of Hebrew and Oriental Literature in the New York City University; Author of the "Life of Mohammed," "Treatise on the Millennium," &c. New York: Harper & Brothers. 1834. pp. 432.

WE are under obligations to Professor Bush for the pains he has taken to introduce this work to the American public. We hesitate not to say that it deserves, far more than any other treatise we are acquainted with, to be considered an exposition of Christian ethics," a body of moral precepts most wisely adapted to mould the character, and to regulate the entire conduct of mankind." It is the result of an extensive observation of human life "in those spheres of action, which are seldom apt to attract the notice of the meditative philosopher," of much careful study of the writings of moralists, of profound thought, and intimate communion with the mind of Jesus Christ. The style of our author is also a recommendation. It is always perspicuous, often terse, epigrammatic, and forcible, and sometimes even highly eloquent.

Mr. Dymond was led early in life to notice the numerous evils, which beset society in consequence of the erroneous principles of action and the low sense of moral obligation, which prevail in the world, and the pernicious tendency of some of the popular treatises on the subject. Being himself a man of singular uprightness of mind (as we learn from a correspondent in England, who knew him intimately from his infancy to the close of his brief career), he was the more quick to perceive and deplore the crooked ways, which men, even men calling themselves Christians, prefer to the plain, straight way of right. The contemplation of sin and suffering impelled him to attempt their correction and relief. This was the origin of the work which is now before us. The design and tendency of the whole are to persuade Christians to adopt, in all the relations and circumstances of life, the only true and safe standard of moral action, namely the expressed, that is, as we should say, the revealed will of God.