simple observation may serve to extinguish a very trifling objection of my critic, That Eusebius has not represented the tyrant Maxentius under the character of a persecutor.

Without scrutinizing the considerations of interest which might support the integrity of Baronius and Tillemont, I may fairly observe, that both those learned Catholics have acknowledged and condemned the dissimulation of Eusebius, which is partly denied, and partly justified, bý my adversary. The honourable reflection of Baronius well deserves to be transcribed. "Hæc (the passages already quoted) de suo in conscribendâ persecutionis historia Eusebius; parum explens numeros sui muneris; dum perinde ac si panegyrim scriberet non historiam, triumphos dumtaxat martyrum atque victorias, non autem lapsus jacturamque fidelium posteris scripturæ monumentis curaret.” (Baron. Annal. Ecclesiast. A. D. 302, No. 11.. See likewise Tillemont, Mem. Eccles. tom. v. p. 62. 156; tom. vii. p. 130). In a former instance, Dr. Chelsum appeared to be more credulous than a Monk: on the present occasion, he has shewn himself less sincere than a Cardinal, and more obstinate than a Jansenist.

3. Yet the advocate for Eusebius has still another expedient in reserve. Perhaps he made the unfortunate declaration of his partial design, perhaps he had a right to make it; but at least his accuser must admit, that he has saved his honour by not keeping his word; since I myself have taken notice of THE CORRUPTION OF MANNERS

AND

AND PRINCIPLES among the Christians SO FORCIBLY LAMENTED by Eusebius. He has indeed indulged himself in a strain of loose and indefinite censure, which may generally be just, and which cannot be personally offensive, which is alike incapable of wounding or of correcting, as it seems to have no fixed object or certain aim. Juvenal might have read his satire against women in a circle of Roman ladies, and each of them might have listened with pleasure to the amusing description of the various vices and follies, from which she herself was so perfectly free. The moralist, the preacher, the ecclesiastical historian, enjoy a still more ample latitude of invective; and as long as they abstain from any particular censure, they may securely expose, and even exaggerate, the sins of the multitude. The precepts of Christianity seem to incul cate a style of mortification, of abasement, of selfcontempt; and the hypocrite who aspires to the reputation of a saint, often finds it convenient to affect the language of a penitent. I should doubt whether Dr. Chelsum is much acquainted with the comedies of Molière. If he has ever read that inimitable master of human life, he may recollect whether Tartuffe was very much inclined to confess his real guilt, when he exclaimed,

Oui, mon frère, je suis un méchant, un coupable;
Un malheureux pécheur, tout plein d'iniquité;

Le plus grand scélérat qui ait jamais été.

Chelsum, p. 226, 227.

Chaque

Chaque instant de ma vie est chargé de souillures,
Elle n'est qu'un amas de crimes et d'ordures.

Oui, mon cher fils, parlez, traitez-moi de perfide,
D'infame, de perdu, de voleur, d'homicide;
Accablez-moi de noms encore plus détestés:
Je n'y contredis point, je les ai mérités,
Et j'en veux à genoux souffrir l'ignominie,
Comme une honte due aux crimes de ma vie.

It is not my intention to compare the character of Tartuffe with that of Eusebius; the former pointed his invectives against himself, the latter directed them against the times in which he had lived: but as the prudent Bishop of Cæsarea did not specify any place or person for the object of his censure, he cannot justly be accused, even by his friends, of violating the profitable plan of his didactic history.

The extreme caution of Eusebius who declines any mention of those who were tempted and who fell during the persecution, has countenanced a suspicion that he himself was one of those unhappy victims, and that his tenderness for the wounded fame of his brethren arose from a just apprehension of his own disgrace. In one of my notes,* I had observed, that he was charged with the guilt of some criminal compliances, in his own presence, and in the Council of Tyre. I am therefore accountable for the reality only, and not for the truth of the accusation: but as the two doctors, who on this occasion unite their forces, are angry

* Gibbon, p. 699. N. 178.

and

which suggest themselves to every liberal mind, against the credibility of the Ecclesiastical Historians, and of Eusebius, their venerable leader, I had taken notice of two very remarkable passages of the Bishop of Cæsarea. He frankly, or at least indirectly, declares, that in treating of the last persecution," he has related whatever might redound to the glory, and suppressed all that could tend to the disgrace, of Religion."* Dr. Chelsum, who, on this occasion, most lamentably exclaims that we should hear Eusebius, before we utterly condemn him, has provided, with the assistance of his worthy colleague, an elaborate defence for their common patron; and as if he were secretly conscious of the weakness of the cause, he has contrived the resource of intrenching himself in a very muddy soil, behind three several fortifications, which do not exactly support each other. The advocate for the sincerity of Eusebius maintains: 1st, That he never made such a declaration: 2dly, That he had a right to make it: and, 3dly, That he did not observe.it. These separate and almost inconsistent apologies, I shall separately consider.

1. Dr. Chelsum is at a loss how to reconcile, ——I beg pardon for weakening the force of his dogmatic style; he declares, that "It was plainly impossible to reconcile the express words of the charge exhibited, with any part of either of the passages appealed to in support of it." If he means, as I think he must, that the express words of

my text cannot be found in that of Eusebius, I congratulate the importance of the discovery. But was it possible? Could it be my design to quote the words of Eusebius, when I reduced into one sentence the spirit and substance of two diffuse and distinct passages? If I have given the true sense and meaning of the Ecclesiastical Historian, I have discharged the duties of a fair Interpreter; nor shall I refuse to rest the proof of my fidelity on the translation of those two passages of Eusebius, which Dr. Chelsum produces in his favour.*" But it is not our part to describe the sad calamities which at last befel them (the Christians), since it does not agree with our plan to relate their dissensions and wickedness before the persecution; on which account we have determined to relate nothing more concerning them than may serve to justify the Divine Judgment. We therefore have not been induced to make mention either of those who were tempted in the persecution, or of those who made utter shipwreck of their salvation, and who were sunk of their own accord into the depths of the storm ; but shall only add those things to our General History, which may in the first place be profitable to ourselves, and afterwards to posterity." In the other passage, Eusebius, after mentioning the dissensions of the Confessors among themselves, again declares that it is his intention to pass over all these things." Whatsoever things, (continues the Historian, in the words of the Apostle, who was