Eusebius did not even believe in Orthodox view of the Trinity, so who cares what he believed in anything?
Now, since there was medical reason for waiting 8 days (production of vit. K that allows blood to congeal, is at its peak on the 8th day).
The circumcision did not save the infant.
No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12)
The reason why Limbo infantum even became a hypothesis of the Church is because the Church was not certain that unbaptized infants go to heaven. The current Catholic Catechism takes the patristic view shared with the Orthodox Church's unbroken tradition, that we do not know, but that we trust God's mercy.
Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child.
The infant is saved because of God's grace since the child has no sin imputed to him and is therefore under no condemnation (Rom.5:13).
He dies because he has an OSN, but he has not actual sins on his soul.
God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God.
They are not accountable No they are not, but unbaptized infants are not Christians.
Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL!
What happens to unbpatized infants is beyond our knowledge or comprehension.
No, only the RCC have made it confusing by making infant baptism an issue for salvation when it isn't.
Precisely. Eusebius was advising the believers not to follow Jewish practices because they were unrelated to baptism in the physicial sense.
No evidence that David circumcised his infant son who died, but who he knew he would see again (2Sam.12)
Of course he did. Jews believe in Shoel, or Hades, a place where all dead souls go, not just the righteous. You are interpreting Judaism of 1000 BC with Christian notions of heaven and hell. Way off the target, friend.
Well that is a good thing to trust in, since water Baptism is a meaningless act on a child
Meaningless? Did Jesus Christ say "Baptise adults in the name of the Father...?" I would rather "err" on the side of "meaningless" in this instance and leave the rest to God.
The infant is saved because of God's grace
And an adult is saved because of God's grace too ! -- regardless of how smart or Bible-read he or she is, or how much (s)he believes, or how charitable (s)he is. It's always God's grace, regardless.
God is now free to impute Christ's righteousness to the infant so he is justified before God
God is always free. He does not have to depend on our state of intellect to save our miserable souls, or on our "acceptance" of Him as believing adults.
Through baptism, we are adopted into Christ, not intellectually but mystically. We do not "adopt" God into us. God adopts us into Him. And, that, dear friend, does not depend on us at all. :)
Baptized infants aren't Christians either! LOL!
Christ commanded us to baptize everyone, and all people who are baptized are adopted into Christ, and are therefore Christians. Of course, if you grow up baptized but refuse God, do not repent as you continue in life, what good is your baptism going to be? It is not the intellect that makes baptism valid, but it is our faith that makes us stay baptized in Christ when we are old enough and willing to repent. Infants dont have to worry about staying in Christ once they are brought into Christ, because they cannot sin yet.
Your theology holds God's grace hostage by our intellectual ability to "accept" God when we are ready. It places our intellect over God, so that He "may" be free to bestow His grace upon us. Gees, that is really an upside-down theology.