which was to arise so long subsequent to their own times. We regret that we have no means of access to other versions of Eusebius, than the translation published at Cambridge in 1683. From this version we shall extract a few passages. Since, therefore, your Devotedness understandeth that'-xadows on. Eccles. Hist. Lib. x. c. 5.-" which libels when your Gravity shall have read❜- μerepa σrepporns. ib.-' that he take care to pay to your Gravity' oN OTEPPOTNTI.- -'if your Gravity demanded any money'-non repporns. c. 6. to be diligently 'observant about Your Holinesse's orders'—tõis ûπo tñs ons dσióτNTOS AnyoμEVOLS. Vita Const. Lib. II. c. 46.-' which letters when Your Holiness shall have perused'— on xadagorns, ib. Lib. III. c. 61. - It will behove Your Prudence (Ty σny σUVEσ) to be present at their council.' ib. It seemed good, therefore, to give Your • Prudence notice' —Snλwσas ty oveσ Ùμy. ib. c. 63. For such • matters as these being well prepared and ordered, Your Prudence ' will be able so to direct-vous. ib. The translator of 1683 was a person perfectly competent to his task; and we see that he understood the terms above as denoting an abstract good quality converted into a title of respect. But, if any further considerations were necessary to elucidate the use of these expressions, it might be sufficient to cite a note of Valesius, who is unquestionable authority on the subject. Vox áyxía parum convenire videtur Antistitibus. Utuntur quiαγχίνοια dem hac voce Imperatores in literis suis ad Rectores provinciarum. Sed cum sacerdotes alloquuntur, sanctitatem, gra'vitatem, vel prudentiam frequentius dicunt.'-' The term ayxia seems but little agreeable to prelates. The Emperors 'do use this term indeed in their letters to Governors of pro'vinces. But when they speak to prelates, they do more frequently use Sanctity, Gravity, or Prudence.' Euseb. Vit. Const. Lib. II. c. 68. Ed. Reading. We may also quote from the Translation of 1683, the following note, which occurs in a passage in the letter of Sabinus to the governors of provinces, Eccles. Hist. Lib. IX. c. 1.εκέλευσε δια της εμης καθοσιώσεως τη ση αγχινοία δια xapaa-'nostræ devotioni præcepit, ut ad tuam solertiam literas darem' enjoined our devotedness to write to your Prudence.' 'I suppose, these are the terms of honour which these great officers had given to them in all addresses; and 'which they themselves also made use of, when they mentioned themselves in any letters they wrote to others." The word Uves is one of the terms of honour which are frequently so occurring in the pages of Eusebius.

But we must now consider what assistance Mr. Nolan has received from M. Calbo's attentions to the Eusebian documents: his versions of the passage are the following:

Now if, as Mr. Nolan asserts, the words of Eusebius mean To submit to your consideration,' and nothing else, how should it happen that M. Calbo's Italian version of Eusebius's Greek is so different from his Italian version of Mr. Nolan's English? But Mr. Falconer must now be heard.

The translations of the original into modern Greek and Italian express that personification of the quality specified, for which I have contended, but there is no such personification in the word "consideration." I therefore repeat my former objection, that EYNEEEI does not here denote "consideration," and assert that it is a titular and honorary appellation, and I confirm this opinion by new authority, which others may verify and estimate for the fabricator of the hypothesis: * ΣΥΝΕΣΙΣ titulus honorarius apud Basilium et

alios.

"If I am not deceived," says Sig. Calbo," this word (EIS) had originally but the signification of an union or concourse of physical objects. Hom." I am not disposed to contradict this remark as far as it relates to Homer, who, according to Damm, the celebrated lexicographer, expresses the confluence or junction of rivers by ξύνεσις.

"The notion of comparing, reflecting, judging, selecting, re-uniting, "and combining by the mind, was not annexed to it, until about the "time when Greece applied to philosophy, (Plat. Aris. Xen. Mem.)

from whence it then signified as it signifies now, prudence, intelli"gence, good-sense, ratiocination, and more precisely what Con"dillac understands in his logic by le jugement."

'Damm, as Sig. Calbo, as well as myself, knows, says: recentiores (referring to Homer) ponunt τὴν ξύνεσιν ἐπὶ φρονήσεως, si quis comparatis invicem pluribus scit eligere optimum" and hence Sig. Calbo's notion of "comparing, reflecting, judging, selecting." A writer, however, who lived before those whom Sig. Calbo has mentioned, has used Evies in the sense of reflecting, judging. Pindar, whom Sig. Calbo might have seen quoted by Damm, has these words,

τόλμαν τε καλῶν ἀραμένῳ

ΣΥΝΕΣΙΣ οὐκ ἀποβλέπει φρενῶν.

'Damm explains ETNE£IZ'by prudentia, and Sig. Calbo by prudenza, intelligenza, among other senses, when it occurs in the prose

writers. In the age of Pindar then, it denoted with Ope (which I conceive is the complete form of the figurative expression,) prudentia. The question therefore is, whether prudence or intelligence (for Sig. Calbo and myself do not differ but with respect to the date of those significations of vos) is used as a title.

"I do not believe," he continues, "that any other meaning was "annexed to it, unless shortly after the Establishment of the church, "and not previously to the death of Constantine himself; since the bishops of those times are given (the Italian is better, non si "davano) no other title than that of adipoi."

66

I am not contending for any other meaning than prudence or intelligence, but simply for the application of that same meaning as an honorary designation, and I may be allowed to argue, that it does not follow because the bishops of the age preceding that of Constantine had no other title than adipo, that those who were contemporary with Constantine, might not be addressed in other forms of respect and compliment.

"And it seems," says Sig. Calbo, "that from the use that prince "(Constantine) made of the word in his letters to the bishops, (See Euseb. Vit. Constant. lib. III. c. 60-2.) it consequently received some tincture of what (allowing for the difference of the persons) the words υμετέρας φιλανθρωπίας, πραότητος, καλοκαγαθίας, Φιλαγαθίας, have in speaking to a monarch, which are not used as so many titles, nor signify fully humanitas, mansuetudo, benignitas, and bonitas." There. is a concession in the words quelle tinte "some shades of a title," beyond which it would be unreasonable to expect or require more, because it is the concession of the very matter in dispute. Sig. Calbo was called in as a judge to condemn, and inflict shame upon an ignorant pretender, but the judge turns out to be an accessary, an accomplice, an approver, timid and reluctant indeed, but still a party in the crime imputed, "the barbarous murder of the finest language in existence." And what has been murdered? A single term applied as a complimentary appellation of a dignified ecclesiastic, and applied probably, as we may have reason to think, for the first time in that manner by the Emperor Constantine to an ecclesiastic of rank.' pp. 7-9,

This, we think, is quite satisfactory. The aid which Mr. Nolan has solicited from M. Calbo, is entirely denied, and his communication is available for nothing so much as the support of the position of Mr. Nolan's opponent, that is, in the passages of Eusebius, a titular designation. For it is most undeniable, that if the term, as used in the letters of Constantine to the bishops, have such relation to those other terms as M. Calbo admits, which are expressive, not of qualities, but of compliment, it cannot strictly and simply (as Mr. Nolan in support of his hypothesis contends,) signify a quality to be exercised in discharging a duty; for this assumption excludes the usage which M. Calbo has asserted, and which is in entire

accordance with Mr. Falconer's remark, that, It was this very relation of such qualities to the duties of the respective stations, that constituted their convertibility into the titles of ⚫ those who were placed in them.' As in the Roman empire,' says Selden, it was a solemn custom to give to the Emperor the titles of Pius and Felix, which were the most usual, and Clemens and Tranquillus, Sanctissimus, and many others, such denoting their quality, or that which should be their quality, by way of honorary, but arbitrary addition.' Such honorary and arbitrary additions are the terms, Your Purity,' Your Gravity,' Your Prudence,' in Eusebius; Constantine evidently using this mode of address, for the purpose of expressing the high respect which he entertained for the superiorecclesiastics of his time.

It would exceed our limits, to enter largely into the discussion of the use of the words τῷ τῆς εκκλησίας λογῳ, which, Mr. Nolan insists, are to be explained as if they conveyed an intimation from the Emperor Constantine to Eusebius, that the latter was to exercise his discretion in accommodating the new copies of the Scriptures to that which he apprehended to be the doctrine of the Church,' but which, we agree with his opponent in maintaining, have no reference to doctrine, and as little to the credenda of Eusebius as the model on which the text of the new copies was to be formed. The Scriptures are indispensable to the service of Christian congregations, and it was necessary that copies of them should be placed in the churches which the Emperor had erected in his new Metropolis. But this specification of the local communities for which the copies were to be obtained, excludes, we think, most completely, the notion of Mr. Nolan, that the letter of Constantine was written for the purpose of directing Eusebius to the use of his own discretion in furnishing a text; because, on this supposition, the mention of particular churches must have been entirely out of the question. For the use of the new churches, Constantine directs that fifty copies of the Scriptures should be supplied; and that the preparation of those copies had no reference to alterations of the text, is evident, because, while the direction of the Emperor refers the care of procuring them to Eusebius, he at the same time informs Eusebius, that orders had been given to the Rationalist to supply the necessary materials; and those orders would just as much prove that the Rationalist was to exercise a discretionary power of selecting and amending' those Scriptures which he might conceive to be useful and necessary to the doctrine of the Church,' as that such a power was committed to Eusebius by Constantine. Mr. Nolan insists, that ớt in the

former part of the letter ( τὴν τ ̓ ἐπισκευὴν καὶ τὴν χρήσιν, τῷ τῆς ἐκκλησίας λόγῳ αναγκαίαν είναι γινώσκεις) is specified as the necessary cause to the contingent effect, their use to the doctrine of the church; to which end their preparation, he remarks, could not in any respect have contributed. But whatever the might denote, as being connected with the knowledge of Eusebius, that it precisely denoted in the orders of the Rationalist-s ἅπαντα τὰ πρὸς ἐπισκευὴν ἀυτῶν επιτήδεια παρασχεῖν φροντίσειν. If επισκευη denoted the selection and amendment of the Scriptures in the hands of Eusebius, what could the Rationalist supply towards that object? Of what kind was the assistance which he was to give? Was he to be co-adjutor with the Bishop in revising and reforming the sacred text? But if the EU in the one case denoted only the providing of copies of the Scriptures in respect simply of transcribing from copies already in use, it is quite obvious what it must denote in the other. The 'was the preparation of the copies, the superintendance of which was committed to Eusebius, and the 'minde which were entrusted to the care of the Rationalist, were the materials he was to provide scribes and parchment, and when the scribes had finished their labours of transcription, the επισκευη was completed.

By the temerity with which he ventures to support his strange hypothesis, Mr. Nolan has exposed himself to the rebuke of his opponent; and on perusing the following extracts from the "Second part of the Case,' every reader will perceive that the confident assertions of Mr. Nolan are in direct opposition to the truth of the case. Nor can he be allowed in this instance of his transgression, any benefit of clergy.'

With regard to the language of the Letter, the fabricator says, "For my own part, after the striking remarks, which you (Sig. Calbo) have made on the internal evidence of the instrument, no doubt remains on my mind, that it was originally framed in Latin; and if you feel any hesitation on this point, one consideration will probably. confirm you in an opinion, in which I feel myself established by your observations. It is in fact only necessary to my hypothesis to suppose, that the instrument, by whomsoever drawn up, was submitted for the approbation of the Emperor; and this being granted, it is not to be denied that it was submitted in Latin, as Constantine was ac quainted with NO OTHER LANGUAGE." "As indeed the Emperor and Bishop, between whom the communication was made, were respectively acquainted with that language, the difficulty really lies in conceiving how a different language should be chosen as the medium of communication, of which one of the parties possessed NO KNOWLEDGE." For an assertion of this kind, repeated with so much confidence, it is natural to require some reference to an authority of a contemporary, to his biographer for example; but there is VOL. XX. N. S. 2 E